Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Post Juror Gets Fined, Removed, Assigned Homework
eldavojohn writes "A Michigan judge removed a juror after a Facebook comment and also fined her $250 and required her to write a five-page paper about the constitutional right to a fair trial. The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her, saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
I find it hard to believe no one is asking exactly why the defendants son is creeping around looking up jurors from his father's trial on Facebook.
Um, it was the lawyer's son who looked it up, and the defendant was female.
There is a whooshing sound near you at the moment that you may want to listen to.
Remember to maintain your supply of
Technically, the judge HAS tried her. The judge has the authority to convict her of contempt of court. Up here, when a juror does that, they're looking at up to 2 years in jail, which is one reason why you don't see jurors talking about jury deliberations even decades after a trial - what is said in deliberations is forever secret.
Ex-parte communication with the defendant is also a good way to go to jail.
all americans are peers since none of us are nobles. (an irony, given how "peer" is used in england....) read some history sometime, it makes a lot of things make more sense.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
That's not true, jurors are only required to remain silent during the trial, afterward, they're allowed to talk to council and anybody else they like. In practice former jurors tend to remain silent for the simple reason that it's very easy to say something after the fact which causes huge headaches or can even cause the case to be set aside. At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.
Recently, I was not selected in a jury trial but I wished I would have been. Too many of the potentials had been "educated" by Law & Order, or other courtroom dramas.
Here is the premise: A man stabs his wife 14 times using 2 knives and a fork. I dont say allegedly because he did do it, he admitted it, he called the police when it was over to tell them she was dead. She was not dead, but went to the hospital where she later died.
The case was between the prosecution (claiming 1st degree, premeditated murder), and the defense (claiming 2nd degree murder). Even after being described what the difference was, most of the potential jurors were under the thought that, if he was found "not guilty" of 1st degree murder, he would do no jail time. In reality, if the defense "wins" this case, he serves for 2nd degree murder instead of 1st. Even before being selected, many had already sided with the prosecution, because "murder is murder, and he already said he did it."
The defense ran out of picks, and the prosecution did not use all of theirs, so I was 2 picks short of being selected. I wish I would have, as I feel many that did get selected weren't going to give him a fair trial as it was. Until proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the defendant was guilty of 2nd degree murder, for which he confessed to. It burns me up to this day that many many many people felt it was the burden of the defense to prove that it wasn't 1st degree murder, and that is NOT how the justice system is supposed to work.
I really wish that they taught this crap in school, Americans are getting dumber by the day.
But Gottman didn't know what he was doing when it came to data analysis.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.