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.
Um, it was the lawyer's son who looked it up, and the defendant was female.
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.
I find it disturbing that anyone in the courtroom (or associated with the process) even knows the names of the jurors.
When I was a juror we were assigned numbers before we even arrived at the court for selection. AFAIK the judge didn't even know our names.
During selection, we were asked if we knew the accused, the victim, any of the lawyers, the police officers involved, or any of the witnesses (and their names were listed) or if we had any dealings with anyone in the small town that they had all come from. Any of those would make you not able to sit on the jury for this case.
We were also strongly warned not to speak about the details of the trial with anyone other than the other jurors. Ever.
Of course, that''s the Canadian court system. In other countries, YMMV.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
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.
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.
$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
Don't people know all defendants are guilty period?
I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them. :P
I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that there's a rather natural reason why the system is slanted against the defendant:
It's expensive and overloaded.
As a prosecutor you wouldn't want to waste resources on a fishing expedition. You'll need a case, and whether fabricated out of whole cloth or genuine, it really ought to be a good enough case to convince at least SOME of the jurors by the time you are finished presenting it. If not, then it is too soon to go to trial, isn't it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.