Nick Keene and Michael Hecker clearly didn't enjoy their time as jurors in the Michael Roseboro murder trial.

The two young men complained to friends on Facebook about being picked for the jury and the length of the trial — despite instructions from the judge not to talk to anyone about the case.

"Yea it blows three (expletive) weeks and when I'm done I have two weeks until school starts," Keene, 19, wrote to one Facebook friend in early July, after being picked for the jury.

On July 27, before beginning what would be the final week of the trial, Hecker wrote that he was "hoping this will be the last week of court."

That comment, posted at 7:24 a.m., elicited several responses from friends.

"ha," wrote one.

"Fry him," urged a second.

"why were you in court?" asked one young woman.

Hecker responded after going home from court that evening: "Im a juror on a 1st degree murder trial…have been for the last 3 weeks unfortunately. I cant wait till I can share my thoughts on it."

"You'll have to stop in at CNH and share…." another of Hecker's Facebook friends, referring to a company in New Holland, wrote back minutes later.

When the prosecution rested its case that afternoon, Hecker declared at 5:53 p.m.: "…Your honor, the Commonwealth rests. THANK GOD" and explained to friends that the case was "dragging on and on."

The communication between jurors and their friends via Facebook raises questions not only about whether Hecker and Keene violated Judge James P. Cullen's strict instructions to not speak to anyone about the case, but about the impact of those online discussions on deliberations.

"The judge says don't discuss the case, and these guys go on Facebook, which they expect will elicit a response even if they didn't intend it to. Did they violate the judge's order? Probably," said Edward Ohlbaum, a Temple University law professor.

"But the question is not so much did they overstep the line. Assuming they did overstep the line, was there any damage or injury?" he said.

Ohlbaum doubts it.

But David Rudovsky, a civil rights and criminal defense attorney and senior fellow at University of Pennsylvania Law School, said he believes Roseboro is entitled, at the very least, to a hearing on the issue.

The newspaper read portions of the two Facebook sites to him. Rudovsky said the "fry him" response — which was not written by the juror himself — is most troubling.

"I would say there appears to be a violation of the very basic rule that jurors not communicate with others regarding the case," Rudovsky said. "And on the question of whether it has actually prejudiced the defendant, I would say based on what you've read me, there is a significant issue here.

"I think that's a significant problem. It doesn't mean the defendant, just because this happened, is entitled to a new trial. But it seems substantial enough to cause a judge to have a hearing," he said.

The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era discovered the Facebook entries while attempting to find contact information for jurors in the case. It provided copies of Hecker's and Keene's pages to Cullen and President Judge Louis J. Farina on Friday in hopes of seeking comment from them.

Cullen's secretary said Monday the judge would not comment but was planning to discuss the matter with attorneys in the case. Farina did not return a call seeking comment Monday.

The newspaper also provided copies on Friday to District Attorney Craig Stedman, who took the rare step of prosecuting Roseboro himself. He said he needed the weekend to research the issue and would comment Monday.

But on Monday, Stedman would not comment because, he said, the Facebook communications had been injected into the case by the newspaper and would now be part of "potential appellate litigation."

Contacted Monday afternoon about the Facebook posts, Roseboro defense attorney Allan L. Sodomsky said he had been made aware of them by local court officials but had not yet reviewed them.

"I just heard that court personnel had information that there were potentially some jurors doing something like what you are saying," Sodomsky said.

A newspaper reporter read portions of the two Facebook sites to him.

"This is the first I've heard any kind of details, so I don't know," he said. "I've never had a situation like this. So we'll need to review it and discuss it and see where we're going to go with it.

"We don't have the information you have. As we get the information, I assume we will look into it, as will the other side and the court," Sodomsky said.

Hecker did not immediately return telephone messages seeking comment Monday. Keene said he was working and not able to comment Monday.

The incident underscores the perils of social networking tools to the judicial process. In courthouses across the country, judges and prosecutors have struggled with similar cases of jurors posting trial updates to Facebook or Twitter.

Most recently, a juror in the public-corruption trial of former Pa. state Sen. Vince Fumo was discovered to have been posting updates on Twitter and Facebook.

The defense demanded a mistrial, but Judge Ronald Buckwalter of Lancaster County allowed the trial to continue, and the jury convicted Fumo. The former lawmaker's attorneys have appealed, in part, on the grounds of the juror's social-networking posts.

In the Roseboro case, the 12 jurors deliberated for 4½ hours Thursday before finding the 42-year-old funeral director guilty of first-degree murder for killing his wife, Jan, last summer in the pool in the backyard of their Reinholds home.

The verdict carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.

Law experts said Cullen, if he determines the Facebooking jurors disregarded his instructions, could order a hearing into whether the verdict was the result of what the law calls "extraneous influence."

Cullen instructed Roseboro jurors at least several times a day not to read about the case or research it, and to not talk about it with anybody. Such restrictions are meant to prevent them from being influenced by others.

"He said multiple times a day not to read or research the case. He told us not to talk amongst ourselves or anybody else," said one of the Roseboro jurors, Tonya M. Tenney of Lancaster.

"If somebody brought up a case, we were supposed to leave the situation. If you hear somebody talking about it, you politely tell them to stop or walk away from it," Tenney said Friday.

Judges, in their long list of instructions to jurors, specifically warn jurors not to use cell phones or other electronic devices.

In an April story about technology's impact on courtrooms, Farina said, "We're now telling the jurors not to use electronic communication devices to gain any information or relay or discuss or investigate any information about the trial."

Facebook allows its users to set their own privacy settings. Some choose to allow any Facebook members to see their updates, pictures and personal information. Others choose to block anyone who isn't a friend.

Hecker's site was available to any member until Friday evening, when he closed his Facebook page to the public. Keene's site was still public Monday.

Temple law professor Ohlbaum, who was read the Facebook comments for this story, said an inquiry into the issue probably won't happen.

"Based on what we know, it is in my view somewhat unlikely. The jury's deliberative process is almost sacrosanct," he said. "The primary determination for setting aside a verdict is whether information came from an external source which had an improper effect or influence on a juror.

"It doesn't sound like an inquiry would be taken, let alone any action resulting in setting aside a verdict," he said.

Ohlbaum said many of the Facebook comments reflect reasonable sentiment.

For example one of Hecker's friends congratulated him for making the jury. "…that's (expletive) awesome about the murder trial," the friend wrote.

Hecker responded that evening, after listening to opening arguments in which Stedman told the jury Roseboro had an obsession with mistress Angela Funk.

"Eh…its actually depressing listening to how and why it happened," Hecker wrote to his friend.

Said Ohlbaum: "That sentiment is reasonable, and it might even be commendable. It's a murder case. Most of these cases are depressing.

"It seems to me, again, the question is, does that comment indicate any kind of outside influence? It does not. It is somebody taking personal stock and being a social critic."

Rudovsky, however, believes such communication with people not on the jury is troubling.

"Assuming it is true that a juror or more than one juror has communicated by Facebook, e-mail or telephone with someone else, that raises a red flag," he said.

"In terms of whether there was some kind of impermissible outside influence, the defendant passed the first hurdle if he can prove there was communication," Rudovsky said.

"I think probably the next fight will be whether the defendant is entitled to a hearing," Rudovsky said. "The defendant would argue there was impermissible contact with third parties and that that contact prejudiced the defendant.

"What the defense is going to argue is, here you have a juror who was unsure of the defendant's guilt or innocence during the trial, and went the way of his Facebook friends.

"That's a substantial claim," said Rudovsky.

If the judge decides a hearing into the issue is warranted, the Facebooking jurors would be called to testify and be asked whether they were influenced by any of the online conversations with their Facebook friends.

If either answers yes, the defendant could get a new trial — costing taxpayers thousands of dollars. If they answer no, it would be up to the judge to determine the jurors' credibility and determine whether a new trial is warranted.

If nothing else, the Facebook pages show Hecker and Keene clearly were unhappy about being on the jury — and talked about their feelings with friends.

Hecker, a 2008 Garden Spot High School grad who attends Duquesne University, posted the following before beginning deliberations on Thursday: "Michael Hecker is crossing his fingers."

"Just vote guilty and get it over with," one of his friends responded two hours later, after Hecker had already gone into deliberations behind closed doors. Hecker could not have read that response, however, because jurors are stripped of their cell phones and not permitted to leave the jury room during deliberations.

Earlier, during jury selection, he wrote: "Jury duty…ugh," to which one friend replied: "try to get a case where someone gets murdered, it'll make it interesting"

"way to jinx it, jordy," Hecker replied online that evening.

"lol i'm guessing you got that case huh?" another friend asked Hecker.

"yeah…" Hecker replied.

Another friend tried to assuage him: "If nothing else, I think you will at least come away appreciating the process. I did. Hang in there."

Keene, who graduated from Manheim Township High School in June, told a friend on July 7 he had been "selected as a juror for the case it sucks."

"I'm sorry your gonna have to be there for like 8 months but it will go by fast…not!" the friend wrote back to Keene.

Ohlbaum, the Temple University law professor, said such comments might not be serious enough to warrant an inquiry, but judges should be very concerned. He suggested they be more specific in their instructions to juries in light of the popularity of social-networking technology.

"I joked when talking to someone about the Fumo case. I said judges should give their instructions and say, 'Thou shalt not Twitter,' " Ohlbaum said. "It seems to me now that what judges should do is say to a jury, 'Listen guys. Let me be clear: your BlackBerries? Turn them off. Facebook? Not happening. Twitter? Gone.'

"Now is the time to get real specific," he said. "Not because people are stupid, but because this technology has become so seductive that we almost do this mindlessly."

E-mail: tmurse@lnpnews.com