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."
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.
I don't think this is analgous to taking notes in a journal, so much as taking notes on the 3rd floor mens' room stall door.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
The lawyers of the defendant are claiming that he was showboating his power, something that's impossible to do with a pad of paper.
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?
If he didn't post anything prior to the verdict, it's a tempest in a teapot. Jurors can say whatever the eff they want once they are out of the courtroom. How many times have big news shows had interviews with jurors that have started along the lines of "And how far into the the trial did you decide that the defendant needed to fry?" In that he's lucky he's in the US, as he's still get his ass handed to him in other countries.
If he posted anything during the trial proper, then I imagine it's not going to matter whether he got feedback or not. He's going to get his ass handed to him. The judge isn't going to care about the technicalities, it'll be pure contempt of court.
If what you mean is that he could have decided that verdict X might make a good book deal, and secretly committed himself to giving verdict X, but didn't say anything until afterwards than I agree 100%.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It does make it more annoying in the short term. The really good news is that it's also the sign of the beginning of the end of the fad. Vacuous sites like Twitter are flash-in-the-pan. There's no real substance, nor purpose, nor income. The only reason people use them is peer pressure and fashion.
The one sure-fire way of making something deeply uncool is to let a politician use it. Thus, hopefully, Twitter will be as dead as Myspace is in less that 18 months max. The sooner the better.
I could care less about the service, because in the real world it simply doesn't exist for me -- and never will. I don't use it, and I know no-one who does. It is just extremely annoying to people whining on about it everywhere online, like it's something important.
I'd really love to meet the owners of the Twitter site, just to have the chance to punch them in the face for being the most obnoxious sock-puppeteers this planet has ever seen.
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.
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
The movie version will be called "Twelve Angry Tweets" when it comes out next year. :P
And let me tell ya, you definitely can't believe everything written on the 3rd floor mens' room stall door. (Oh, and Carl - if you still read /., I'm like so sorry about ...well... you know. I just kinda got the impression you were totally into it.)
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
There are. You're given a notebook (and extras, if you need them) to take all the notes you want/need. Every juror sits in the same seat, every day, and those notebooks never leave the courtroom until the jury goes to deliberate, at which time the jury takes their notes with them. Those are the only notes you're supposed to take.
IANAL, but I have been a juror.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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....
I swear to god, if IANALBIHBAJ becomes a new internet slang, it will be the greatest day ever.
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.
Yeah, about 2/3 of the reason why they were angry is because the fan was broken and it was hot in there.
Jury duty is part of the price for having a free society (theory). It's about being an adult and taking responsibility for trying to live in the kind of society the US is (or was depending how cynical you are) trying to be. Sure, the reality is it sucks and feels like a huge waste of time but if your only motivator for doing something you don't want is money then chances are you're A) bad with relationships and B) going to lose some rights you'd really rather not.
I find myself saying this more and more, there are two things people in general need to do: Lighten up and grow up.