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."
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 prefer using the preexisting terminology for Twitter users, "twit".
The lawyers of the defendant are claiming that he was showboating his power, something that's impossible to do with a pad of paper.
I could recreate the entire site's functionality in 15 minutes.
The functionality isn't what's important, it's the community that is. Plenty of people have done MySpace and Facebook prior to both of them being around (webrings, GeoCities, etc are all related to those two sites) but the biggest draw is the number of users who have latched to make it successful.
That said, if you come up with a website that has the same (or preferably better) functionality and better network scalability and uptime as well as attract a customer base that rivals Twitter, then by all means go for it. In fact, if it's good enough I'm sure people will eventually make the switch and make you rich.
Let me know what retarded word you come up with to describe your service's micro-blog posts so that we can make fun of it here and get modded appropriately too.
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
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.
I've made many websites, far more complex than that pile of trash. Feel free to look at the one in my sig. -- Free Canadian Online Dating [dreamsingles.ca]
You should've called it twatter.
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.
The defendant is entitled to a unanimous verdict from twelve impartial jurors, not eleven. Even if you let that requirement slide there is still the possibility that the twelfth juror unduly influenced his colleagues so he would be able to publish some spectacular posts.
I've made many websites, far more complex than that pile of trash. Feel free to look at the one in my sig.
And they scale effectively up to millions of users while maintaining 98.7% uptime or better?
I agree twitter is baffling in its popularity, and probably overvalued - but in my own experience when someone says "I can code X in 20 minutes" it usually indicates a serious lack of understanding of the requirements ;) *
* "Hello World" excepted from this.
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
That's like the thought process of someone looking at an abstract painting, like a Jackson Pollock, and saying, 'My five year old could have done that!"
The point is, you didn't, they did, and you can only wish that you had.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
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
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.