Judges in Lancaster County have dealt with their fair share of jurors — and even potential jurors — who didn't follow their instructions to the "T."

And their handling of those cases could shed light on how — or even whether — Judge James P. Cullen deals with two jurors who, despite his instructions not to talk to others, posted comments on Facebook while serving on the jury in Michael Roseboro's murder trial.

In 1996, Cullen presided over a homicide-by-vehicle conviction that was later jeopardized when a juror acknowledged she disobeyed his instructions — in this case, by visiting the scene of the crime.

And in 1990, then-Judge Michael A. Georgelis lashed out at potential jurors for talking about a case before the court to each other. He eventually dismissed 21 prospective candidates and scolded the next round of potential jurors.

Though the specifics of both cases differ from those in the Roseboro trial, they can provide some insight into how issues of potential juror disobedience are handled. The 1990 case specifically illustrates how seriously judges take their warnings against talking about cases.

Judges instruct jurors not to travel to the scene of a crime, do their own research or talk to anyone about a case because evidence is to come only from the witness stand. They also don't want jurors to be influenced by news coverage or others who want to discuss the case.

The jury in the 1996 case found Michael W. Rineer, then of Willow Street, guilty of being drunk when his car crashed into a pole Oct. 19, 1994, along Route 222 near Bunker Hill Road in Strasburg Township. His passenger, W. Russell Barrage, 31, was killed.

After the trial, one of the jurors came forward and alleged that another juror timed the distance between two speed limit signs, and then provided information during deliberations that contradicted trial testimony.

The second juror denied timing the distance, but acknowledged discussing other physical aspects of the scene.

Cullen conducted an "evidentiary hearing" into the matter, but only after Rineer and his attorney sought one, claiming the conviction was tainted by the information the juror received outside of court.

Cullen ordered all 12 jurors back into the courtroom a month after the verdict. "This is not a trial," the judge told them. "This is to gather information to determine whether any information was provided to you that was not presented in open court."

The jurors were called to the stand one by one and questioned about any information they received during deliberations that wasn't presented in court.

Without comment, Cullen ultimately decided that, despite the juror's apparent disregard of his instructions, the defendant did not deserve a new trial. He upheld the conviction.

Rineer, however, appealed to the state Superior Court based, in part, on the juror's actions, and a three-judge panel agreed to hear the case. In a 2-1 decision, the panel upheld Cullen's findings. Rineer appealed to the state Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case.

What this and other cases make clear is that it is extremely rare for any court to act "sua sponte," or on its own will or motion, even when it becomes aware of potential juror disobedience. Typically, judges don't order a hearing until either prosecutors or defense attorneys file a motion.

It also is clear that judges will not overturn verdicts based only on a juror's disregard of instructions. The defendant would have to prove the jury's deliberations were somehow tainted by an "extraneous influence" — a high hurdle to clear.

In the Roseboro case, 12 jurors deliberated for 4½ hours 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.

After the verdict, the Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era discovered Facebook entries made by two jurors in case. The jurors, Michael Hecker and Nick Keene, complained 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.

The attorney for Roseboro, Allan L. Sodomsky, has said his staff is gathering information and that it could be weeks before he decides whether his client wants to pursue another trial or appeal.

District Attorney Craig Stedman, who prosecuted Roseboro, told a television station earlier this week that he believed the Facebook comments to be harmless, but that the ultimate decision would be up to Cullen.

"A person on Facebook now, that's their way of coming home and blowing off steam where as before you would do it at the dinner table and talking to people," Stedman told WGAL.

"The judge had the power to schedule a hearing if he felt he needed to in this case, and he didn't do that. You can draw your own conclusion."

Both Hecker and Keene posted on Facebook upon being chosen for the jury and after the trial began.

But even potential jurors are prohibited from discussing the case — regardless of whether they discuss the facts or not.

In 1990, Georgelis angrily scolded potential jurors for a murder trial following reports that some were discussing the case.

Georgelis allowed jury selection to continue but later dismissed the entire group of 21 potential jurors, according to a newspaper account of the incident.

"The individuals that have caused this problem know who you are," Georgelis said after summoning the jury candidates from the jury room. "If I could pinpoint who you are, I would demonstrate how upset I am."

One of the prospective jurors had reported hearing a member of his group say he read a newspaper article about the case. He said the same man also made a biased comment to two others. The prospective juror said 14 people were in the jury room when the comment was made.

Georgelis told the prospective jurors the prejudicial remark was "offensive to this court. You can't imagine the disservice to this court and this county."

He said the damage was irreversible and the entire pool of potential jurors was tainted although only three were engaged in the conversation. When a new panel of 17 jury candidates was assembled, Georgelis strongly cautioned them against any discussion of the case.

"I don't want to hear that any of you breathe a syllable of this case," the judge warned. "If I find out that you did, I'm going to be very upset."

E-mail: tmurse@lnpnews.com