Slashdot Mirror
Juror Tweets Could Create Mistrial
nandemoari writes "Russell Wright and his construction company, Stoam Holdings, recently lost a $12 million dollar lawsuit brought by investors. But lawyers for the firm have complained that juror Johnathan Powell's Twitter comments broke rules when discussing the civil case with the public. The arguments in this dispute center on two points. Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given; if that's the case, the objection would presumably be thrown out. If Powell did post updates during the trial, the judge must decide whether he was actively discussing the case. Powell says he only posted messages and did not read any replies. Intriguingly, the lawyers for Stoam Holding are not arguing so much that other people directly influenced Powell's judgment, rather that he might have felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict to impress the people reading his posts."
C'mon, the irony was practically slapping you in the face Stooge style...
I can't wait til "Twitter" passes and we can stop using retarded words like "tweet".
Twitter is not some genius website worth the $55,000,000 it's raised. I could recreate the entire site's functionality in 15 minutes.
MABASPLOOM!
He made tweets like:
"So, Johnathan, what did you do today?' Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money!"
and
"Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo, and they'll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter. http://www.stoam.com/."
He was clearly show-boating for his tweeter fans, even if in jest. Therefore, I do think there is a chance that he "felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict to impress the people reading his posts."
While it is sucks that there may have to be a retrial, the important of impartial justice supersedes the inconvenience.
If he got feedback, that's obviously wrong, it would seem. But let's suppose it can be proven he didn't discuss, only post, i.e. he's sending out information, not receiving it. Then couldn't it be treated as if he was jotting down notes, or writing in a journal? IANAL, but I think there are regulations for when / if you are allowed to journal / take notes. He could just be trying to clear his thoughts by writing them down.
I predict new attack - TOS - Tweetter Overloading Service. Tosses.
Who does PR for Twitter? Is a person / third party? Someone deserves a gold medal in that department. Maybe several... I'm astounded by the amount of press it gets. Perhaps it's just the cute name.
Look, I understand the novelty of microblogging, and I'm intrigued by Tweet Grid (et al.), but not since the Segway have I seen such a tsunami of PR for something that, from 50000 feet, often looks merely incremental.
Powell says he only posted messages and did not read any replies.
Sounds like your average day on slashdot.
God, it really seems that as we've adopted more and more ways to communicate, we've completely forgotten how to do it properly, and etiquette hasn't kept pace. When I was a kid we had corded phones. No real chance of taking one into the bathroom with you, so there never needed to be a rule against talking on the phone while taking a crap. But if you asked anyone whether it would be acceptable were it technologically possible, they'd probably have reacted with disgust. But today? I see and hear people on their phones in the restroom all the damn time.
So maybe it's the judge's fault for not realizing what mouth-breathers people can be, and explicitly forbidding tweeting, blogging, etc? I dunno.
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
>> rather that he might have felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict
A verdict so spectacular that 11 other people came to the same conclusion without using twitter?
Sorry, did I miss the memo where "tweet" as something other than the sound a bird makes entered mainstream language? Ahhh, the last usage listed on Wikipedia: A micro-blog post on the Twitter social network site. So in other words, it's another way of saying "message posting"? As in, Jurors posting about unfinished trial could cause mistrial?
The fact that politicians and media elite now use twitter doesn't make it good. It makes it even more annoying.
EIGHT MINUTES REMAIN.
If you don't believe me check the clock on the mantle. I've used it dozens of times. I'm qualified to discuss time.
E
"media elite"
That's a phrase that's only used by right wing wacko "news" organizations. It's meaningless and inflammatory at the same time. You maybe should be embarrassed for using it.
Juror needs to be arrested on contempt charges, and the trial needs to be a mistrial. What an idiot.
IANAL yadda yadda yadda, but I've served on 6 juries to date. And an instruction that was emphasized repeatedly by the judges in every case was "do not talk about the case outside of the jury room until the case is over". (Note: At least in my part of Indiana, jurors are allowed to discuss the case *amongst themselves* during all phases of the trial (except, obviously, when court is in active session), provided they do not attempt to come to a verdict before the official deliberation phase of the trial, and *all* members of the jury must be at least listening to any discussion, even if not actively participating.)
If this guy twittered after the trial was over and the verdict had been delivered, then I see no problems. But if he was broadcasting before the verdict was handed down by the judge, then I think there are indeed grounds for a mistrial...and Mr. Bigmouth Juror should get a few days in jail himself to think about his actions.
And were you on the losing side, I'd be willing to bet each and every one of you would be fighting for a mistrial on the same grounds.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/03/jurors-twitter-posts-cited-in-motion-for-mistrial.ars
Im just saying. If you are gonna go after the Towel headed religion. Dont do it AC...
Make this ass-hat pay for the 2nd trial, or at least the winning party's side.
This trial has been going on for a while in PA. The Twitter/Facebook story hit on Sunday, but today (Monday) he was found guilty on 137 counts and they did not replace that juror. I am guessing that will be among the things his lawyers put in his appeal? Something about it being unfair. 137 counts of corruption and i bet they cray about something posted on facebook. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6711443
Any jury I've ever been asked to serve on...the judge makes one thing clear. DO NOT DISCUSS this with anyone. I would think if he did post something on twitter, he violated the rules handed down by the judge. I don't buy the "I posted but didn't read any responses" argument. That's like someone saying I smoked pot but didn't inhale.
"Sequestered" means you don't read about the case AND you don't TALK about the case. Period.
What a loser.
I piss off bigots.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/03/fumo_jurors_online_discussion.html
In PA. Big time corruption trial of a state legislator.
The motion should have been resolved by now, but I'm not sure what happened. The verdict (guilty) came down today. If the juror wasn't removed, it's very possible that an appeal could argue this very issue. Fumo's attorney has already said he is going to appeal.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Surely if you comment (in public) or discuss (in public or private, except with other jurors) about a trial for which you are a juror, that is contempt of court? Well, in the UK, not sure if you have the same concept in the US.
"Did not read any replies"
He's guilty.
Observe: I post comments on my blog.
I do not read replies.
My web traffic goes up after each comment, some influencing it more than others.
The prosecution insinuating bias doesn't have to prove that I read a single comment. If the traffic to my blog was affected by what I posted (impossible to disprove, or even to question!) then the nature of what I post is NOT UNBIASED.
Thank you, thank you. Use this wherever you see fit, the comments are public domain.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
How can people be so fucking stupid?!
What on Earth could make somebody flagrantly disregard instructions and risk jail time just so they could blog on Twitter to all their friends? Why not wait until AFTER the trial? So you were a juror sitting on a trial..... WHO THE FUCK CARES?! WE'VE ALL DONE BEEN THERE!
The judge ought to have beat the idiot to death with his gavel. It would have been a good example of 'Public Service'.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
"Sequestered" means you don't read about the case AND you don't TALK about the case. Period.
What, is this fight club?
Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary] /said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered. Seems to me that the question is not whether or not he did it (in spite of his denials), but how relevant the posts actually were .
How do you figure this? I read both articles and dug back to his twitter stream. Maybe you're confused because the ars article gives times in a different timezone than his twitter stream. Though it took me all of ten seconds to figure out and verify that.
Nothing I can find says he made any posts like what you are implying. There's one post between him being selected and after the verdict. It's about french fries. I fail to see the evidence you seem to be trying to make people believe is there to bolster your case. Just admit the OP was probably wrong and move on.
Looks like Pinus Chaney, FMR Vice, as in Pres., is making the rounds, post Godum.
Pinus, "Dick" by his gay friends in the State Department, and "Richard" by birth, seeks further to dilude the people of "his" true intentions, in this, Post-Bush era that unfolds.
Pinus, Oh Pinus, Where for Out Thou.
Doth sissors snap thy head?
then its 110% fine. If he posted those tweets during the verdict, then it might be a problem.
Jurors always have unknown emotional motives. To suggest that a verdict be altered due to unreasonable motives by a juror is childish. How many unknown emotional motives exist in maintaining the entire civil and criminal justice systems?
how else do you come to a decision? You must decide one side or the other.
That's partiality.
And the reason why it's 12 peers rather than just one is that even if one has a thing about the case or just jumps to a conclusion and stays there is that there are 11 other people who are there too.
It is possible that not only did the juror in question post showboating "tweets" to gain attention, but then also purposely got the defendant's lawyers attention in order to provoke a mistrial AND yet further amplify his posts attention. Oooooo... that would be naughty. Naw, he's probably not that smart. That's like Ozymandias smart. Does the juror get punished if they cause a mistrial on purpose?
If he violated judges instructions about discussing the case. I wonder if the parties involved could sue the jurors for the cost of a retrial.
Unfortunately I can't get to twitter during the day to confirm what you said, but I've no reason to doubt that it's true .
All I said was that he did post during hours of trial, which you confirmed. I didn't say anything else except that the question is now whether the post(s) are relevant. (As you saw, probably not...)
My dispute with the GGP's comment was that he called previous poster an idiot for implying that the guy 'tweeted' during the trial itself - when the fact is he /did/ do so.
Their argument isn't grounds for a mistrial. If the lawyers didn't want anyone with an audience or anyone that tweets they should have asked questions about it during jury selection and denied jurors they did not like. They are basically saying that if they had allowed someone like Rush Limbaugh on the jury that means they automatically get a mistrial because Rush Limbaugh will rule in a way that makes him popular with his audience. A failure in jury selection is not grounds for a mistrial.
Nice backtrack, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it.
Your post was heavily putting across the "well, of COURSE he claims to be innocent, but why should we believe what he says?" tone. The simple fact, as I pointed out, is that this has nothing to do with what he claims. If you could have waited until you got home to pipe up, you could have verified this yourself. It has do with information he does not control, that plainly shows that he did not tweet about the trial until after the verdict was given. As said in the article, he never claimed he didn't tweet at all. The judge said they could use cellphones. If he wanted a ban on talking about what you had for lunch, he wouldn't have said that.
Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary] /said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered.
(Emphasis mine) It's funny how you fairly strongly imply that you read the tweets, when it's obvious now you didn't. Also, he didn't make posts, plural. He made a post. About french fries. How does this not square with "Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given"?
Also, you try to hide behind the OP comment. But the OP said: What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand? Again, the one single tweet before the verdict was given was about french fries. Since the RTFAs and the tweet history show he didn't "discuss this case with anyone until it's over", then it looks like he understood it far better than the people who called him an idiot.
In summary, both your post and the OP were bullshit. They make each of you out to be far more of an idiot than it's claimed the subject of this article is.
Read the article. He posted those messages AFTER the verdict was handed down.
OMFG! Tweeter tweeting may not lead to mistrial. Then again, it may. HS! WTF are we to do?