Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks

So did the jury ... by SplatMan_DK · 2007-10-09 13:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Her defense sucked... Apparently, so did the jury...

--
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...

Re:So did the jury ... by mosch · 2007-10-09 13:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The job of the jury isn't to decide on the basis of a popularity contest; the decision is...did she break the law or not?

They got to choose what her financial penalty was.

They purposefully picked an amount that had absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the financial damages that may have been incurred. This was not a matter of law. This was a bunch of citizens sitting in a room and purposefully deciding to ruin the life of somebody that they didn't like.
Re:So did the jury ... by BadAnalogyGuy · 2007-10-09 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

This was a bunch of citizens sitting in a room and purposefully deciding to ruin the life of somebody that they didn't like.

May I introduce you to the U.S. Congress?
Re:So did the jury ... by SplatMan_DK · 2007-10-09 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

she broke the law and she lost. We don't actually know that yet. She did appeal the case.

The law says you can't distribute stuff when you don't hold the copyright.

Did she distribute?

She was convicted of distribution. Actually, she was also convicted to pay more than 9000$ for each song she allegedly distributed. But there wasn't a shred of evidence that she distributed anything.

For that simple reason, she should not have been convicted.

Don't get me wrong here. I am no pirate. I fact I am probably one of the few rare examples of people who don't have a single illegal MP3 file or movie. I also believe that pirates should be punished.

But the evidence must be present. No matter how much I dislike pirates, ensuring a fair trial (with appropriate evidence) is far more important that collecting money for the greedy "content industry".

- Jesper

--
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Re:So did the jury ... by EvanED · 2007-10-09 14:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Appeals aren't decided by juries. In fact, they are almost entirely to decide legal questions and procedural questions; an appeals court more or less doesn't redecide a jury's finding of fact.

If the appeals court decides, for instance, that the trial judge was wrong in the instructions to the jury in a material way, the case could be retried, but the retrial itself isn't the appeal.
Re:So did the jury ... by mosch · 2007-10-09 14:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only thing this jury proved, IMO, is that people tend to abuse any power that is given them.

They were legally required to assign a penalty appropriate to the crime, but they did not do so. They ignored this obligation, choosing instead to "send a message" to a woman who they did not like.

They used the law as a weapon to destroy a person who offended them personally. They succeeded only in proving that feeble people, when given power, tend to abuse it, and that Duluth has plenty of feeble people.
Re:So did the jury ... by MistaE · 2007-10-09 14:24 · Score: 5, Informative

Sorry, but Jury Nullification, while having deeply entrenched common law roots, is not as cut and dry as you may think it is. Many court cases, including some from notable power courts such as the Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law." People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 463

Also, just from browsing the Wiki article you linked there are many examples of court cases in which Jury Nullification has either been criticized or not been held to be a viable option for juries. See U.S. v. Krzyske 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (Upholding on appeal a judge's answer to a juror that jury nullification "didn't exist") and U.S. v. Thomas 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they are planning on utilizing jury nullification)

Now, I'm in no way advocating the removal of the concept of jury nullification from our system, but I'm simply stating that to just throw out such a blanket action as the answer to this question doesn't help much because the action itself is under attack by significant powers in the legal realm. At least IMO, it seems like it would make much more sense to focus on electing a decent legislative body to reject these rules, rather than holding out for jury nullification that really only works as a one shot deal to begin with.
Re:So did the jury ... by no-body · 2007-10-09 14:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

It clearly shows what is going on in minds of regular (and "better") people in the US.
One aspect is that, if somebody is not doing well, or has done something wrong, it's ok to kick even more so s/he "learns" and gets better (the stern father penalizes).
Effects are overpopulated prisons, total weak or missing social umbrella and an increasing number of people under poorness level.
The other fact shown here is that people are totally out of touch with financial reality. Financially ruining a life of (is she a single mother?) a person with the idea to doing something "right" shows an overwhelming degree of insensitivity.

I am appalled!
Re:So did the jury ... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-10-09 15:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why? The case was cut n dry, she broke the law and she lost.
Cut and dry? BULLSHIT While I was not there, every article I have seen on this indicates the RIAA wasted most of their and everyone else's time ranting about what "piracy" was doing to the industry, the only "evidence" that might have indicated there was even the possibility that she had even so much as a kazaa account was the testimony from their "expert witness".

That witness does not even validly qualify as an "expert witness" and has had their testimony thrown out of numerous courts as well as being threatened with legal action if they continued their work in the state of Texas. Their "facts" have been proven invalid again and again as well as being laughed at and torn apart here at Slashdot. Unfortunately her lawyer didn't mount a strong attack on this or apparently even object to their ranting in court about all the harm being done by "pirates" as being irrelevent as to the matter of whether or not his client was liable in this particular case. Further, the "expert witness" has been known to break into people's computers to look for evidence, once that happens how can you expect to be able to call anything they "find" on a computer to be valid?

The interviewed juror seemed to think spoofing was an unbelieveable claim just because he didn't know how ("we aren't stupid") and with his comment about his wife you have to wonder if he didn't discuss it with her, which would be a conduct violation on his part. Being as this jury wanted to prove "we aren't stupid around here" then it was likely that in their ignorance they decided to go with the "higher authority" and perceiving that to be the RIAA instead of one individual.

All this case proves is that the system works and I don't mean the Justice System, I mean the one that starts with you being taught to blindly accept authority by the Public School System. The jurors perceived the RIAA as the authority here and accepted all the crap they fed them.

One of the major problems with the civil justice system is that "preponderance of evidence" is too often equated with who produced the most evidence. It is undeniable that a corporation can afford to produce a greater quantity of "evidence" then an individual can and it is almost impossible to prove you did NOT do something. In this case Best Buy even had the sales records where she had purchased the albums that include the songs she was accused of sharing. There was no Kazaa software on her hard drive nor any evidence it had been there. Yes the drive had been replaced but it was testified by the Best Buy tech that this had been done before the alledged events.

She testified she ripped all those songs from cds she owned, RIAA tried to say she couldn't have done it as fast as the times indicated. Feel free to test this, grab a fast entire cd at a time ripper and race it against finding and downloading the same tunes, willing to bet the ripping process wins hands down especially if you have your cd collection right there and run it like the back up operation it is.

There is more that could be said but I am tired of ranting. Maybe Mr. Beckerman will log in and give that "cut and dry" line a proper roasting.
Re:So did the jury ... by DoofusOfDeath · 2007-10-09 15:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law."

The application of law is already whimsical and often capricious. Bush had the Justice Dept. stop prosecuting Microsoft. Cops have the freedom to not give tickets to friends. DA's have the freedom to (silently) choose not to prosecute for political reasons.

And besides, we can't really expect judges to support the people's overriding of a conviction the judge would like to make. We the People are the final authority in the U.S. system, even if judges, DA's, congressmen, and Presidents claim otherwise. I submit that we just lack the balls to consistently assert our authority.
Re:So did the jury ... by mOdQuArK! · 2007-10-09 16:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Perhaps you can explain WHY the Constitution specifically requires that people can be tried by a "jury of their peers", if not for the reason if giving common citizens a way to nullify unjust laws or judicial decisions.

A little hint: it's not because such a jury is going to "weigh the evidence" better than a panel of people who have received training in analyzing legal & evidentiary issues.

It's specifically because the Founders wanted a last-ditch mechanism for common citizens to protect each other if all three branches of government are operating out of the bounds of common sense.

It's only natural that the judicial system try and discourage this kind of thinking (and it's a damn shame that schools don't teach enough American Civics anymore to make people aware of their duties in this area), but that doesn't change the original intent of the Founders, and it's one damn good way for people to push back against an out-of-control government.

It's too bad there aren't more such ways. I personally think that it should be a Constitutional right to vote, regardless of whether you've been convicted of a crime or not (unlike the usual policies of disenfranchising convicted felons).

The way I see it, if your society is running in a healthy way, then there shouldn't be too many criminals & their vote won't have much of an effect on votes/elections.

If the government is heading in a direction where it's criminalizing a large chunk of the populace, however (which is a common tactic when the "leaders" of a society want to disenfranchise people who don't support them), then the votes of the convicted should provide a valuable negative feedback mechanism to the officials being elected to make them think twice about what kinds of laws they are passing.

We're not stupid up here by Tweekster · 2007-10-09 13:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apparently you are lady, you put a judgement of 200K over a few songs.

She could have shoplifted the cds for a few hundred dollars in fines.

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis

The jury *was* full of morons... by garcia · 2007-10-09 13:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

"That is a compromise, yes," said Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota. "We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

Sorry, $9,250 is ridiculous and doesn't send a message about anything other than the fact that, contrary to the comment of your fellow juror that you do in fact know what's going on in Duluth, you really don't know what the fuck is going on. You awarded money that was originally meant for people who were *SELLING* copyrighted songs, not "sharing" for free.

the fine didn't fit the crime by schwaang · 2007-10-09 13:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The jury decided the penalty, and it's plain ridiculous.

Let's assume we agree that the defendant was, as this juror said, an obvious liar, and guilty on all counts.
Should she really lose her house or retirement savings over this?

I'm personally against stealing copyrighted music. But this penalty is waaaaay out of proportion to the crime, IMHO.

Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by architimmy · 2007-10-09 14:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

When I first read about this I though "finally, someone got a jury trial." Then I read about the circumstances and the defense's strategy and immediately realized this was a cut and dry case. She clearly broke the law and didn't take the settlement offered. I personally think she deserves the penalty. If not for her blatant disregard for the law, than at least for setting such a terrible precedent that the RIAA can now use as a bat to beat over other defendants in other court cases.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by pla · 2007-10-09 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

And that's the jury's fault?

Yes. every juror has an obligation to understand the concept of "jury nullification". End of story.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by Wavicle · 2007-10-09 15:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes. every juror has an obligation to understand the concept of "jury nullification".

Says who?

Even if you had a right to jury nullification (which you don't) the jurors didn't much seem interested in finding for the defendant. The evidence of infringement was overwhelming, the defendant repeatedly lied to avoid a judgment. The jury had the option of fixing penalties at $750 per song. They opted for more than 10x that.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by pla · 2007-10-09 15:19 · Score: 5, Informative

The jury had the option of fixing penalties at $750 per song. They opted for more than 10x that.

On that, I have to agree with you. Though I have to admit, it doesn't do much for my personal opinion of the naivete of Duluthites.

Says who?

Says anyone who understands why we have juries of our peers rather than juries of government-appointed experts, when the latter could incontrovertibly do a much better job of deciding the facts of the case.

Jury nullification, not the USSC or the presidential pardon, represents the final and most effective of the "checks and balances" on government abuse of power.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by Xaositecte · 2007-10-09 15:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Jury Nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented.

You not only have the right to do so, but the civic duty. In this case, being charged thousands of dollars per song she wasn't commercializing is simply ridiculous.

I agree with you in principle, she broke the law and deserves some kind of punishment. The damage inflicted by her, however, doesn't fit the punishment she recieved.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by jedidiah · 2007-10-09 16:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Want a higher principle?

Lets start with the notion that copyright is meant to serve the public interest.

Follow that up with the notion that "cruel and unusual" punishment is wrong.

Yesterdays top 40 hits simply aren't worth ruining a civilian's life over.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by Walpurgiss · 2007-10-09 16:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Most jurors probably are not aware of jury nullification, and no judge or prosecutor is going to go out of their way to tell them about it. Imagine: Judge: Instruction number 1: Stealing music is against the law. Please determine the defendant's guilt or innocence. By the way, even though theft is illegal, if you, as a jury, disagree with this law, you have the right to throw it out by means of jury nullification. After all, it was just music. Ok, please go deliberate.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by Russ+Nelson · 2007-10-09 16:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Even if you had a right to jury nullification (which you don't)

Actually, you do, and this is well established in English jurisprudence. William Penn was on trial for preaching Quakerism in the streets. The jury was instructed to convict because he was indeed preaching and it was indeed against the law. The jury refused to convict. The judge sent them back. They still refused. He threw them in jail. They still refused. He put them on bread and water rations. They still refused. Finally he gave up and accepted their acquittal. And ever since then juries have been able to vote according to their conscience rather than the law.

It's also equally well established that you can't tell people about it in the context of a court case (except during jury deliberations). Otherwise you would ALWAYS have lawyers attempting to get the jury to nullify.

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by ultranova · 2007-10-09 20:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

think the law is retarded. But blaming the jury is like blaming the soldier on the ground in Iraq for the war--he just does what he's told, and not what he thinks should be done.

Blaming a US soldier serving in Iraq for Iraq war would be like blaming a Mafia thug for helping enable the crimes of Mafia. US doesn't have conscription, but a voluntary for-pay army. If you choose to take money from it in order to help it in its activities, of your own free will and under no coercion, then of course you can be blamed for taking part in said activities. Why on Earth would US soldiers be exempt from being held accountable for their choices ?

As for the jury, it decided to enforce an unjust law when it had the option of not doing so, and not only that, but ordered higher penalties than the law required. It is guilty as Hell.

Besides, if the jury must uphold the law, then just why are they there ?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by Viv · 2007-10-09 23:43 · Score: 5, Informative

A right is something granted to you by some entity. Nowhere are you given explicit permission to nullify the law. And that, my friend, is the beauty of the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In the USA, at least, the lack of enumeration of a right does not imply that the right is non-existant.

If you go back and read some history, you'll find that a goodly chunk of the first Americans thought jury nullification is a right. I could quote a bunch of famous people, or give you the long history of Bushel's case, Zenger's case. I encourage you to educate yourself and look at both cases, in which jury nullification was upheld as a juror's right in the English common law (which, by the way, where do you think the rights protected by the 9th Amendment are most likely to spring from?).

No, I will quote only one authority:
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy" -- John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime by GodInHell · 2007-10-10 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Jurry nullification dosen't work in civil cases.

In Criminal cases, the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts and law. They read the law as given in jury instrcutions as given by the judge, apply them to the facts, and come up with the verdict. Abesnt evidence of serious corruption within the jury room - that's the end of the road and the Prosecution can't bring the case again or ask the judge to overturn the jury (as opposed to the defense who can ask the judge to toss out a guilty verdict.

In a CIVIL case like this, the Judge is the sole arbiter of the law, the jury decides the facts. If the Jury tosses the law out the window and makes a decision which is contrary to law -- the plaintiff may enter a motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law (formerly: Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.) [this is a summary, post trial JMOL is actually a renewed JMOL, if you want to read up on it.. wikipedia is a good source: here.]

Essentially, since the judge has determined that "making available" is a sufficient act to violate a copyright - the question for the jury was "did the defendant make songs available for download." Evidence at trial linked her to the share folder - the kazaa username was the same that the defendant uses on myspace, and a small collection of other sites. She also wiped her drive / possibly handed over a false drive durring discovery (trying to hold back evidence == bad in the eyes of the court - as attempting to flee is evidence of guilt, attempting to hide or destroy evidence is evidence of a guilt.) The judge must then ask (in response to the JMOL) could a reasonable juror reach the conclusion that it is more likely the defendant did NOT make those files available for download? If no - then the JMOL is granted - the jury finding gets tossed, and they move on to determining the damages.

Jury Nulification is NOT for the win in RIAA cases.

-GiH

Stupidity by overbaud · 2007-10-09 14:22 · Score: 5, Funny

"I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here" implies that Duluth juries are stupid... just not *that* stupid.

--
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.

"But the evidence must be present" by SpaceLifeForm · 2007-10-09 14:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Not according to the judge in this case.

Link

Jury Instruction #15: The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Re:"But the evidence must be present" by Anonymous Coward · 2007-10-09 15:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not so fast, he says it violates the copyright owner's exclusive right of distribution because copyright law says only the copyright owner can authorize copies to be made. She allegedly violated their right to authorize, by making the file available and even though no actual distribution was in evidence. For example, if you sell somebody the right to perform a copyrighted work you've violated the actual copyright owner's exclusive right to do this.

Or in other words, if you leave your keys in the car then you must have authorized people to steal it, and if you leave the keys in your friend's car then you must have put somebody up to stealing it since you obviously authorized the theft by leaving the keys in it. Or your Sunday newspaper, hey it's right there on your lawn where anybody could take it so you must be ok with that. Or if you are walking down the street with no underwear on and get 'assaulted' it's not rape because, hey, you made it available that means you authorized it.

Making available != authorizing and this judge is an idiot. That part of the verdict is complete bunk. The part about her violating the copyright sounds right though.

Don't Lie by DudeBroccoli · 2007-10-09 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the real lesson here is that you shouldn't lie to a jury. It sounds like the juror was pissed off that the defendant didn't respect them enough to tell the truth.
If you're going to get up and give testimony, don't tell obvious lies.
The jurors have been called away from their everyday lives to sit and listen to an argument between two parties they have no interest in. The least you can do is show them some respect.
If I was on that jury, I would have counted that as a big strike against the defendant as well.

Re:Not the question of guilt, but of quantity by tiananmen+tank+man · 2007-10-09 15:10 · Score: 5, Informative

She also had the hard drive wiped by the geek squad and they testified that it was due to a legit windows problem. The geek squad guy was also asked of the defendants music buying habbits at bestbuy. The defendant was a huge purchaser of music cds.

Re:Sorry, juries don't work like you think they do by Anonymous Coward · 2007-10-09 15:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

IANAL either, but my fiancee who is assures me that jury nullification is alive; the courts just don't want to mentioned.

Your woeful ignorance of the concept of jury nullification not only bothers me, but it terrifies me. The jury is the final arbiter of truth, and a not guilty verdict cannot be overturned, "legal" or not. It has a long standing tradition in North America, predating the American Revolution. In fact, citizens of the colonies used jury nullification several times to "nullify" laws they found unjust. Since you've served on so many juries, no doubt you noticed that the jury doesn't read the verdict plus a paragraph of reasoning? Jury nullification cannot be truly removed with the current system we have in place.

That said, I also believe that she was shown guilty far beyond what the law calls for.

Re:help her out then /. by Angst+Badger · 2007-10-09 16:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

For the same reason that buying animals at a pet store because you feel sorry for the way they're being treated is self-defeating. If you shovel a bunch of money down the maw of the RIAA, they'll come back for more. Contrary to the popular (and petulant) belief around here, the RIAA doesn't actually care about music piracy. What they care about is making money. It just happens that music piracy stands in the way of that goal. They're just as happy to make their money by draining legal defense funds as they are by selling CDs.

If you want to fuck with the RIAA, a) write a letter to your congresscritter, perhaps along with a campaign donation, and b) don't buy RIAA products. But don't think giving a bunch of money to the RIAA is going to discourage them.

--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.

Re:alas no by digitalchinky · 2007-10-09 20:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Stealing or copyright infringement? It makes a difference!

Re:alas no by Mathinker · 2007-10-09 23:02 · Score: 5, Informative

> probability states that it would be worthwhile putting one of a thousand guns to your head,
> where only one was loaded, and pulling the trigger if the reward was a million dollers upon survival.

Uh, no. Probability and expectation theory only deals in uniform ideal units. Your example contains two different units: "death" and "dollar". You're confusing probability theory with utility theory here. Or with a combination of probability and utility theory.

E.g., if the person pulling the trigger knows he is sick and most likely will die in great pain within several weeks, I wouldn't think it at all extraordinary for him to take this wager. In his case the utility of death vs. money is different than for others (you, for example, it seems).

And in the downloader's case, in many cases the downloaded product has a higher utility (e.g., no DRM) than the product he can attain legally. And what the relative utility of being sued by RIAA is for him is dependent on what he thinks, not what you think.

Re:alas no by sherms · 2007-10-10 00:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Looking at it from several perspectives. Yes they look guilty. But as stated above. The punishment should fit the crime. Be it this was a civil case not criminal. The same stands. The Jury was obviously pissed off by the defendant and nailed that person on not just fact, but emotion. Just look at the jurors statement! Its pretty obvious. The amount IS ludicrous. At worst the Jury should have only doubled the original settlement. I guess you could say don't piss off the jury, but thats obvious. But in this case, the jury did cross the line. Again, see juror's statement. I've spent a lot of time in the courtroom (not as a defendant). Jury's can unfortunately get to emotional and prejudicial.

There's really few options this person has now.

35 of 918 comments (clear)