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 $250 and required her to write a five-page paper about the constitutional right to a fair trial. The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her, saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
She didn't snap a bra in chemistry class. I'd expect some community service at least.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.'"
Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It's not even about common sense, it's more a problem with discretion. I cannot believe some of the things people tweet or post about on Facebook--things that I would think any self-respecting person would know better than to share with the world. It's like it's a contest to see who has the most embarrassing dirty laundry. Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't. Odds are, no one cares.
Most people would be better off if they just kept their mouths shut and their keyboards silent.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
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.
You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.
Bad: A juror talking about a trial outside of the trial.
Really, insanely, horribly, justice pervertingly bad: Being selected as a member for a jury and deciding a person's fate before they or their representation has a chance to present their side of the case.
The bad part was "bound to happen" but not even giving the accused a chance to explain their side of the story? That should never be "bound to happen." And that fundamental issue with how a 'fair trial' should happen in the United States, I think that's why the essay was ordered.
My work here is dung.
it is a jury of fellow citizens and nothing more.
Contempt of court is one of the few times where the writ of habeas corpus doesn't apply. It has been ruled that the defendant "holds the keys to his own cell".
Unfortunately that implies that you have no standing to challenge a live judicial order. If the judge tells you to do something, you either comply or get locked up until you do. The lack of habeas corpus means that you can't whine to a higher judge and sit tight.
Jurors aren’t supposed to think, they’re supposed to know. And how exactly can you know until you’ve heard both sides of the case?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Those that get picked, in many cases, were not smart enough to get themselves dismissed during jury selection.
Or understand the concept of duty better than you seem to.
As in the phrase "jury duty"
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
When I was on a federal jury a few years ago. The trial was held 15 miles from the "crime scene" and as much as 45 or more from the juror's homes. It took some jurors over 2.5 hours to drive home. (I live in a city exceedingly bad for commuting.)
However, none of us resented the defendant for this. It was remarkable that everyone felt it was their civic duty.
My only complaint about the entire process is that the jury (pretty much the entire jury) felt that the charges were overly aggressive. A very young man had been selling crack, and admitted to selling crack. But because he discussed crack prices and pickups over the telephone with other people, it was conspiracy. Even though he did not benefit from the conspiracy. The way the instructions to the jury were written, there was no choice in the outcome. In addition to selling charges, the young man went to jail on conspiracy for 20-30 years.
The judge should have been required to explain to the jury about jury nullification. We would have nullified those charges so quickly it would have made the DA's head spin. All potential jurors should understand what jury nullification before they begin.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Having gone for jury duty in two states, I can tell you that what you say is not always the case.
I served on a jury in Kentucky in 1999 or so, and the other jurors struck me as intelligent, level-headed people. We were there to do our civic duty and we did it well, I think. We returned our verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. That is what was asked of us and that *is* what we did.
Fast forward about 8 to 10 years and I was called to jury duty in Massachusetts. I was saddened by the number of people deliberately lying in an effort to get out of jury duty. What I saw were a bunch of selfish, self-centered consumers, rather than citizens who were willing to do their civic duty to at least attempt to preserve the notion of a fair trial in this country.
My number was called and I sat in the box. The attorneys have the right to strike jurors for any reason. I was called to the bench to answer questions about my previous jury service and about a past experience as a witness in a trial. I answered those questions as truthfully as I could given the amount of time that had elapsed since either had occurred. One of the attorneys decided to strike me based on my answers to those questions, or perhaps for some other reason. (Ironically, I "got out of" jury duty faster than the people who were lying about knowing something about the case, or being biased, etc.)
It sickens me when I hear people say things like "too dumb to get out of jury duty." That attitude has contributed to the decline of the criminal justice system in the USA. It's not the only factor, of course, but it is part of the problem when people do not want to participate in something that is vital to freedom in our country.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Given recent articles about snap decisions (apparently deciding if you think a gal's hot, or your emotional reaction to a web site both take a fraction of a second), perhaps all this woman was doing was revealing an uncomfortable truth about the justice system. Could it be that jurors reach their decision in the first few minutes (or less) and everything that follows just loads them up with ammunition to form their rationalizations?
One of my favorite George Carlin quotes was something to the effect of:
"Think of how stupid the average American is. Now remember that half of them are dumber than that."
A system with (multiple) full-time judges avoid some of those errors, but opens another can of worms.
*shudder*. Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
...period?
:P
I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
People can't change their minds now? Of course a juror is going to think the defendant is guilty after hearing the prosecution. If she didn't think so, the prosecution wouldn't be doing their job.
The one criminal jury I was on had a pretty good cross-section in terms of education and experience. As I recall, only one potential jurors was removed: one who had previously served on a jury that failed to reach a verdict.
Each side in a jury trial wants jurors that are as well disposed as possible to their side, and has an incentive to remove jurors that they feel will be unreceptive to the arguments that they plan to use. Additionally, either side (and often both sides) have an interest in the jury actually reaching a verdict. Aside from the strong evidence of bias needed for a removal for cause, they have a limited number of peremptory challenges that they may use to accomplish this, which limits their ability to shape juries.
Aside from the potential shared interest in reaching a verdict, these interests are generally directly opposed, so where one party has an interest in removing intelligent potential jurors, the other party would generally have an interest in removing less-intelligent members of the jury pool, though I don't think its really that common where that would be a factor, anyway.
$250 fine. First class, well done. You hit back at someone doing you a favour when they do a bad job. *clap clap clap*.
What a self-important moron this judge is.
A favor? They call it "jury duty" for a reason. Under the 6th Amendment, every US Citizen has the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury and it is the duty of all citizens to help provide for this right. Obviously the devil is in the details when it comes to finding a truly impartial jury, but it's a pretty obvious (and serious!) breach of decorum and a complete abandonment of duty to post "gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY" on Facebook for crying out loud. If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was make up an extreme point of view on something and she would have been dismissed. She was letting down all parties involved in the case and all of her fellow citizens by doing this. I bet if she ever got in trouble with the law, she'd want a juror absent of anyone make snide comments about her on Facebook.
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
It's not even about common sense, it's more a problem with discretion. I cannot believe some of the things people tweet or post about on Facebook--things that I would think any self-respecting person would know better than to share with the world. It's like it's a contest to see who has the most embarrassing dirty laundry. Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't. Odds are, no one cares.
Most people would be better off if they just kept their mouths shut and their keyboards silent.
Discretion is not compatible with the narcissism and vanity that drives a person to think that the world needs to know every last detail about their personal lives, as though they were a celebrity who can hardly shop at a grocery store without having it published in the tabloids. That's why the people with discretion are relatively silent compared to the ones you're talking about.
Common sense does not begin to enter the picture until well after vanity is recognized as the empty and useless pursuit that it is and rejected on those terms. Until then, any satisfaction derived from personal exhibitionism is hollow and fleeting which is why the person must engage in more and more of it to maintain the sense that they are "somebody". If it accomplished anything or had any lasting value, then there would not be the need you have recognized to sink lower and lower and engage in it more and more intensely. It is, as they say, a chasing after the wind.
Now, I really enjoy and appreciate freedom. I recognize that this includes the right to do something self-defeating and stupid as long as you don't force others to participate. So I believe it would be wrong to lift a finger towards trying to stop anyone from doing this. The point is, there are very good reasons why I haven't jumped on this bandwagon. It is not just a matter of personal taste or preference no matter how badly some want to legitimize it by portraying it that way.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Ummm, no. He slapped someone with a fine for violating very specific instructions (not to mention the law), and for causing problems and needless expense and delay for the defendant, attorneys, and other jurors.
It's not like Jons just offered to serve on a jury out of the goodness of her heart, had no instructions about how she had to do her job and got fined for an innocent mistake. She was called upon to do her civic duty - as any citizen can be. She received specific instructions about the hows and whys of serving on a jury. Then she apparently decided to ignore the instructions, and that her ability to post whatever crap wandered through her head on Facebook was more important than the right of the defendant to a fair trial.
Bra-vo. Good show. Kudos to the judge for not only giving her a proportionate fine, but for also giving her some more meaningful work to do so she understands WHY what she did was bone-headed and wrong.
Contempt of court is typically not a criminal conviction. It can land you in jail for the duration of the contempt plus several months or years depending on the state.
But it carries no criminal record.
Criminal contempt of court on the other hand does result in a criminal record. However, this requires a full-blown trial and the defendant has just as much of a right to a jury as any similarly serious crime.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's really just an older definition of the term. "Peer" is mostly used the same way in Britain as it's used here, and the it can be used here to describe "peers" of other countries, perfectly accurately. Since blooded nobility means very little these days, even in countries that continue to have it, the old use of the term has fallen away except in historical records and fantasy novels.
To GP: The original use of the term "peer" had little to do with ability, and everything to do with birth. When the original English legal system was designed, the jury of one's peers assumed that a noble would not be judged by a jury of commoners. Of course in the US, since we recognize no blooded nobility, that means that a jury of your peers is synonymous with a jury of fellow citizens.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
As a juror, you can "THINK" anything you want. That's fine. But a posting "I'm looking forward to telling the defendant he is guilty" when only the prosecution has had time to present their case is not THINKING. It's reaching a conclusion, and stating it in public, before the evidence has been examined. That's precisely, exactly, 100% the epitome of what jurors are NOT supposed to do.
The prosecution lays out their evidence, then the defense lays out their evidence and has the opportunity to examine and refute the prosecution's evidence. During that process, some or all of the prosecution's case may be destroyed (or may not). At the end, both the prosecution and defense make closing statements, which allow then one last chance to summarize what is left of their respective cases.
Until the defense has had an opportunity to fully respond to the accusation, the juror should not be in the position of concluding that the defendant is guilty. They may have their own internal opinion about it, but their job while a juror is to really listen to the defense and see if the defense can adequately explain away or refute the prosecution's evidence. If the defense fails to do this, then they vote "GUILTY" in the trial. Once the verdict is read and the jurors are released from duty, they are then free to talk about the trial to anyone they want. Until that time, they are constantly reminded to keep their mouth shut outside the jury deliberation room and their eyes, ears, and mind open while in the courtroom.
Boring as hell? You betcha. Damn it's mind-numbingly dull. But it's one of the duties we have as citizens - protecting the rights of our fellow citizens. It's very similar to military service in that regard.
If we are accused of a crime, we have the right to a trial. Guilt or innocence in that trial is decided by people who are supposed to be impartial strangers who look at the evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible. That right is supported by the jury system, and the jurors who are drafted into service to perform this duty. The inconvenience and hassle we pay to occasionally be called for jury duty is part of the price of freedom - it ensures that your accuser cannot also decide your guilt or innocence. They have to convince a room full of people.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
My Grandpa used to say: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
Sadly that is what the juror system has become.
If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it.
How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?
May the Maths Be with you!
To be honest that's probably the thing about my one time on jury duty that I'm the most proud of. Finishing deliberations, the results were nothing like what I would've expected going into it. Perhaps the fact that it was a civil trial rather than criminal and that we just had to go with the preponderance of evidence and didn't need unanimous consent to reach an agreement.
How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?
I imagine this has to do with a combination of factors, namely a campaign on the part of the legal system to suppress knowledge about jury nullification and instruct jurors that they may not use it. The lack of ethics and/or civics classes in modern American secondary education probably has a whole lot to do with it as well, I'm sure.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Care to explain how you knew the other potential jurors were lying?
Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't.
Agreed. That's what Twitter is for.
Jury nullification is an extremely closely guarded "secret." DAs don't talk about it. Judges don't talk about it. Mentioning it during a juror interview is a good way to have yourself immediately ejected from the building. They don't teach it in civics class (and if they did, the teacher would be "disappeared" from teaching the class). The entire justice system does not want you to know about nullification and they will go to great lengths to make sure you don't know about it. If you mention it in a room full of other potential jurors, everybody will be sent home.
So don't try to tell somebody he's an idiot because he doesn't know about it.
A couple of years ago, I was working in a PC repair shop (a real one, not a Geek Squad) with 6 other techs of varying ages (20ish to 45ish), most with 4-year college degrees or working towards them. We were having a discussion about the RIAA's actions, and I mentioned that I'm surprised that no jury in a RIAA-related case has voted for nullfication.
None of the other techs knew what jury nullification was. Furthermore, none of them believed that it was a real thing once I explained it. And *furthermore,* once I brought up the Wikipedia entry on jury nullification, they all just assumed that Wikipedia was wrong.
So it does not surprise me at all that people are unfamiliar with the concept. Most high schools don't even teach civics any more.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I would lean more toward, "If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was live in another country."
Indeed. I wish our voting process was to hand each voter a list of offices followed by a blank line. The poll test would be to write in the candidates name. If you can't correctly spell the name of the candidate you wish to vote for, you obviously haven't done enough research to really know what they stand for, and are to uninformed in matters to be choosing who gets to make the laws.
But, that's just me.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I can't believe no one has referenced the Richard Dawkins paper where he points out some serious flaws in the idea y jury trials.
If you haven't read it there is a copy here Three herring gull chicks...The reason juries don't work.