Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Melbourne Trial Aborted Due To Crime Web Site

Posted by timothy on from the collect-your-get-out-of-trial-free-card- dept.

Chatz writes: "The jury in a murder trial in Melbourne was dismissed because the details about a previous trial of the accused are available on CrimeNet (www.crimenet.com.au). There was no evidence that any of the jurors had seen the information and the information is publicly available in newspaper archives. Here is a link to the story." This sets an odd precedent, to say the least. Perhaps criminals would benefit by describing their crimes in excruciating detail as soon as they're apprehended. What do y'all think down under?

2 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Not that i'd know or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    It's a good job it wasn't Larry Flint on trial. Try finding a jury who hadn't seen a porn website...

  2. Honor System by Zarf · · Score: 4

    Last time I was on Jury duty, we were on the honor system to not discuss or research our case in the intrest of a fair trial. From the article I gather this is virtually the only concern aborting this retrial. When screened for jury duty last time I was asked a series of questions to determine my bias. I was also asked on the honor system to not do any research, visit crime scenes, or discuss the case...

    I assume that the Aussies also have a similar convention. So, my confusion is over why it is okay for me to say... "no, I've never heard of this case nor will I go look it up in the library." Yet my disavowing any readership of CrimeNet is not just as valid a claim. Is my verbal agreement to not read any websites dealing with the case somehow inherently less believable than my word to not research the case at the library?

    Shouldn't I still be honor bound and even under some sort of threat of perjury to not research the case? If something is published on the internet, does this make it inherently more dangerous than something published in a periodical?

    I am very suspect of this Judge's reasoning. Jurors are supposed to operate under instruction from the judge anyway. If a juror does violate thier agreement to not research, ect... then the juror should be penalized. This course of action seems to punish the defendant.

    As for the bit about CrimeNet ruining lives... That's another article isn't it? You can seek legal action against a site defaming you right? CrimeNet might be getting a law suit or two eh?

    - // Zarf //

    --
    [signature]