Juror's Tweets Overturn Trial Verdict

D H NG writes "The Arkansas Supreme Court had overturned a murder conviction due to a juror tweeting during the trial. Erickson Dimas-Martinez was convicted in 2010 of killing a teenager and was sentenced to death. His lawyers appealed the case on account of a juror tweeting his musings during the trial and because another juror nodded off during the presentation of evidence. Tweets sent include 'The coffee here sucks' and 'Court. Day 5. here we go again.' In an opinion, Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote 'because of the very nature of Twitter as an... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions.' Dimas-Martinez is to be given a new trial."

Comments

Uh oh.

[Hartree]

I've got jury duty next week.

I'll have to remember not to complain about the coffee.

Re:Uh oh.

[Gunfighter]

Please be sure to read up on the concept of jury nullification before you go. You have more power in the jury box than any other individual in the justice system.

Re:Uh oh.

[hedwards]

That's every bit as much an abuse of the system as the DA that includes questionable evidence or testimony.

When something goes to trial the plaintiff or prosecutor and the defense agree to a set of ground rules which include the jury only acting within their power and on the basis of the evidence given. Jury nullification is something which breaks the deal and makes it even harder to obtain justice as the prosecutor/plaintiff has to then worry about the opinions of the jury as to whether or not the defendant should be guilty, not whether or not they did it.

Re:Uh oh.

[rubycodez]

bullshit, whether or not it produces or hinders justice would depend on how it was used.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

The possibility of it is actually *required* for the system to be just. You appear to confused about the concept.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Jury nullification is something which breaks the deal and makes it even harder to obtain justice

You clearly do not understand jury nullification. It *increase* justice, it doesn't make it harder to obtain justice. The jury can refuse to convict someone of an unjust law. Many laws are either not just, or are not just when applied to a particular circumstance where other factors were involved. In such cases, the jury has the power to nullify the unjust law.

It's disturbing that so many people are unaware of their moral and ethical obligations in this space.

Re:Uh oh.

[TheLink]

If nullification is used, then the defendant goes free and nothing is changed.

At the very least the defendant would disagree with you ;).

Re:Uh oh.

[VAElynx]

Bullshit.
The precise reason the jury is allowed to do this is to make sure the law stands up to the scrutiny of the common people ,as well as to make sure whether he's guilty or not.
The next guy who breaks the unjust law has a precedent on his hands in the case you described above.
But I don't wonder.. the above opinion is exactly the sort the lawyers and judges want you to have, because they don't want any common sense injected into their meddling with justice.

Re:Uh oh.

[theshowmecanuck]

Are you one of those guys who argues about everything so you can say "it depends" when that is implied in just about everything we state? Is life just one big set of edge cases to you? Some people generalize because generalizations work most of the time, let us get on with our lives, and don't make us look like putzes by arguing about everything with "it depends." Should I look both ways before crossing a busy street? Uhhhhh, let's see, it depends. Stop talking like you're 'tarded enough to need to wear depends.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, read up on it so you can make sure you and your fellow jurors don't do it. It is anathema to the concept of Justice.

"It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.--John Adams

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."--John Jay (Joint-author of the Federalist Papers and first U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice)

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."--Thomas Jefferson

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.--Alexander Hamilton, 1804

"....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact."--Thomas Jefferson

Re:Uh oh.

[theArtificial]

When something goes to trial the plaintiff or prosecutor and the defense agree to a set of ground rules which include the jury only acting within their power and on the basis of the evidence given. Jury nullification is something which breaks the deal and makes it even harder to obtain justice as the prosecutor/plaintiff has to then worry about the opinions of the jury as to whether or not the defendant should be guilty, not whether or not they did it.

We have a legal system, not justice. A very important distinction. Otherwise we wouldn't have DAs who are measured by their conviction rates, "success" stacked towards those with the most money, innocents executed, being held without a trial etc.

Re:Uh oh.

[_0xd0ad]

Nullification is a jury ignoring the law in favor of their personal preferences.

Correct.

That is not what a jury is there to do. They are not charged with weighing what the law says, only whether it applies and whether the defendant is guilty of it.

Wrong. Absolutely and unarguably false, and quite frankly a dangerous lie.

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams

Jury nullification is our last defense against tyranny. When the legislative branch creates unjust laws, the judicial branch allows them to stand, and the executive branch enforces them, it is the juror's moral duty to refuse to convict. That is the sole reason for juries to exist. -- Me

Re:Uh oh.

[DarkOx]

Like anything it can be abused. That is why there are 12 or more members of jury. It provides a pretty adequate check on the power of any one juror. So one crazy that thinks practically every law should never be enforced is not easily able to run away with nullification.

Nullification is rarely needed but very important to justice in those situations where the law as written fails to fairly describe a situation. Most likely because the legislators did not envision it or perhaps because a special interest *bought* it. I am glad I live in a nation where if I stood trial and 12 of my peers can agree that if they had been in my situation they'd have done the same and it would have been the right thing, I would go free.

Yes a prosecutor can decide not to bring charges, but \s?he is one person who faces all kinds of varying pressures, from different places. The jury on the other hand is 12 unknown people who's identities are hopefully not widely knowable at least until after the trial is concluded.

Re:Uh oh.

[rubycodez]

As we move towards a police state, jury nullification can be a valuable weapon in the war for liberty against oppressive laws that should not be enforced. That is just one example out of many situations where jury nullification is a great thing.

Re:Uh oh.

[Attila Dimedici]

You are wrong. The point of a jury is to decide if the action of the defendant was something that should be punished, even if it violates the letter of the law. If the jury does not believe that the defendant's action should be illegal, it is intended that they find the defendant "not guilty". There is a valid reason that jury nullification is not talked about, if jury nullification was brought up more there would be cases where the jury found the defendant "not guilty" because he was "such a nice guy." Jury nullification is only to be used when the jury does not believe that the action in question should be a crime. Jury nullification should not be used when the jury thinks, "Yes, he did what they said he did. And, yes, that definitely should be a crime. But this guy should not be punished because I like him." The latter is too close to, "No, he did not do what they said he did, but this guy should be punished because I don't like him."

Re:Uh oh.

[grumling]

It's unlikely the OP will be seated on a case that has anything to do with constitutional law.

If the OP's experience is anything like what I've had happen in the past, it involves a lot of waiting around and a general loss of faith in humanity.

Re:Uh oh.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

But I don't wonder.. the above opinion is exactly the sort the lawyers and judges want you to have, because they don't want any common sense injected into their meddling with justice.

Not true. "Common Sense" is given a ridiculous, unjust, and unjustified weight in the courtroom. Jurors are expected to rely on their "common sense" in making their evaluations, to a point where courts will rarely let you present any evidence showing that "common sense" is wrong. Courtrooms are about narrative, about selling a story, about appealing to common sense. It doesn't matter if everyone on the jury is wrong because they have an unjustified belief in the fidelity of eyewitness testimony or of a written document. It just matters what they think. What does their "common sense" tell them about what happened?

Interestingly, laypeople and engineer types sometimes diverge significantly in their verdict. I remember one guy who was on a jury where the defendant incinerated his wife's body. Hung jury because the laypeople didn't believe he'd killed her.

Re:Uh oh.

[theshowmecanuck]

And the OP was saying make sure to read up on the concept so that the person going on jury duty doesn't do something nullify the jury. Having unnecessary retrials is also a bad thing, both in terms of justice and as waste of a lot of people's time and money. Doing the kinds of things that nullify a jury is anathema to justice. For example, like making and receiving tweets about a trial you are on the jury for. YOU are the one who is supposed to listen and make the verdict based on the fact of the case in front of you, not your twitter followers and their opinions (which have the possibility of influencing you). But we already know that nullification can be good or bad depending on how it is used. Just about everything we talk about depends on how 'it' is used, it is generally implied. So to argue 'it depends' all the time is pointless.

Re:Uh oh.

[canajin56]

The system has no process for determining the rightness and wrongness of a law. Only it's constitutionality. So if there was a law putting to death all people not of the "correct" faith, that would get overturned. But if there was a law putting people away for 10 years for possessing a gram of marijuana, that's fine. Already been ruled on, you can carry physical objects across state lines, so the federal government has unlimited power in regards to anything involving any physical object. No grounds for appeal whatsoever.

The Jury is there to decide on the facts of the case. One of the core facts in dispute in any case is that "This law should apply to this situation" and if you take that away from them, you might as well do away with the Jury entirely.

Re:Uh oh.

[_0xd0ad]

Know what they got Al Capone for? Tax evasion.

Re:Uh oh.

[brain159]

He's ignorant - but, as someone with a lower UID than you, I find you guilty of being a cockbag.

Re:Uh oh.

[jonbryce]

Jury nulification means finding the defendant innocent regardless of the evidence against them. This is something jurors have a constitutional right to do. If you don't think the act the defendant was charged with should be against the law, you can find them not innocent even if it is absolutely obvious they did it.

Re:Uh oh.

[FatdogHaiku]

Jury nulification means finding the defendant innocent regardless of the evidence against them. This is something jurors have a constitutional right to do. If you don't think the act the defendant was charged with should be against the law, you can find them not innocent even if it is absolutely obvious they did it.

Please, please do not find me "not innocent"...

Your Honor, We the jury find the defendant "Not Innocent" by reason of dyslexia!

Re:Uh oh.

[Just Some Guy]

Jury nullification is something which breaks the deal and makes it even harder to obtain justice as the prosecutor/plaintiff has to then worry about the opinions of the jury as to whether or not the defendant should be guilty, not whether or not they did it.

I want this. I want prosecutors to hesitate before bringing charges against someone who may be guilty of breaking a law without actually having done anything wrong.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but people on the internet argue for jury nullification for drug dealers and the like, because marijuana being illegal is a "crime" itself.

As a person who uses the internet, I agree. Marijuana should not be illegal and I could not, in good conscience, vote to convict someone of breaking the law that prohibit marijuana possession or sale. Such action would directly conflict with my own moral standards, and in my opinion, it would be a crime against humanity to allow another human being to be imprisoned for marijuana, regardless of what the law suggests. This would be exactly the type of situation where jury nullification is necessary. It takes a long time to change the law; why should we, as citizens and jurors, facilitate the destruction of innocent lives for trivial nonviolent "offenses" simply because these unjust, outdated laws are still on the books?

Re:Uh oh.

[Baloroth]

If we exist in a police state, jury nullification will do nothing whatsoever, as if it works then it isn't a a police state. If it doesn't work, then it is a police state... but again, nothing happens. Jury nullification is only good for overturning specific unjust laws, not for reversing the course of the entire nation.

Re:Uh oh.

[Nimey]

OTOH you had southern juries who'd refuse to convict people of murdering blacks back in the bad old days.

Things are never as simple as Internet Libertarians think they are.

Re:Uh oh.

[russotto]

When something goes to trial the plaintiff or prosecutor and the defense agree to a set of ground rules which include the jury only acting within their power and on the basis of the evidence given.

Everything the defendant "agrees to" is under duress. If he refuses to co-operate with the system, the system will simply continue to operate to convict and sentence him. There is no deal.

The way I look at it, if I am placed on a jury (under duress, as jury duty is compulsory) where the defendant is unquestionably in violation of the law, but the law is something I feel is unjust, I really have only two choices -- I can ratify the injustice by voting "guilty", or I can deny or delay the injustice by voting "not guilty". To me, the choice is easy; I will not willingly facilitate injustice.

Re:Uh oh.

[TrekkieGod]

It's a problem with jury selection.

The jury is selected randomly. There is a ~30% chance that a 10%-minority will not be represented on the jury.

The jury candidates are selected randomly. The jury itself is selected by the defense and prosecutor in the jury selection process.

Re:Uh oh.

[_0xd0ad]

Dealers and violence go hand in hand.

That wasn't true when you could buy heroin in drug stores. Why do you suppose it's true now that you can't?

Re:Uh oh.

[LordLucless]

What you describe is a mistrial, not an example of jury nullification.

Jury nullification is when a jury refuses to pass a guilty verdict, despite the law. It's the jury judging the law, rather than the defendant. Jury nullification is the last defence against an unjust law.

Re:Uh oh.

[sco08y]

Jury nulification means finding the defendant innocent regardless of the evidence against them. This is something jurors have a constitutional right to do. If you don't think the act the defendant was charged with should be against the law, you can find them not innocent even if it is absolutely obvious they did it.

It's not a constitutional right, it's a consequence of a practice that derives from common law. Basically, the issue is that juries must be free from intimidation to present their verdict, and that the possibility that they will reach a verdict not in concurrence with law is a possibility that we live with. It's much the same as the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty: it's not some fundamental right, it's just a compromise we make because our legal system is naturally imperfect.

The only operative rights here are the defendant's right to due process, and the right of the people to have their elected representatives draft the laws they live by and of the courts and police to execute those laws faithfully. As a juror, being drafted into judicial service, you don't have any right whatsoever to unilaterally overturn those laws, instead, you have the *power* to do so without repercussions. You are violating the trust society put in you, and you're really not any better than a crooked cop.

tl;dr: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Re:Uh oh.

[LordLucless]

That's somewhat true. It was widespread before prohibition (American independence and civil war saw a lot of nullification). And judges clamped down on educating people about their rights regarding nullification, but not the exercise of those rights.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are never as simple as Internet Libertarians think they are.

Conversely, Internet Libertarians are *always* as simple as I think they are.

Re:Uh oh.

[Theaetetus]

The precise reason the jury is allowed to do this is to make sure the law stands up to the scrutiny of the common people ,as well as to make sure whether he's guilty or not.

On the contrary, the reason the jury is allowed to nullify is that it's an inherent power that we can't remove. We do not ask a jury why they vote to acquit, because to do so places the jury in an adverse position to the State, and has the possibility of a chilling effect: vote guilty, and we let you go home in peace; vote innocent, and we'll put you on trial.

But, because we don't ask them why they vote to acquit, we cannot stop them from doing so when they feel a law is unjust, or when they feel the defendant should go free regardless. Theoretically, with an unjust law, this can be good... but in practice, jury nullification has primarily been used to acquit lynch mobs and murderers in the south during the civil rights era. And that's evil, but it's an evil we cannot prevent for the reasons above.

Re:Uh oh.

[LordLucless]

convict an innocent person because they have some (racial, ethnic, gender) bias against that person.

No, they can't. That's why it's called jury nullification, not jury creation - they can set aside existing laws, but they can't establish new ones. A jury verdict of "guilty" can be set aside by the judge if there's no law broken; a verdict of "not guilty" cannot. The system is deliberately skewed to prefer the guilty go free, rather than risk the innocent being punished. That's why the standard of proof in criminal trials is "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than the "preponderance of evidence" you get in civil cases.

Re:Uh oh.

[swalve]

No, we have juries so that the justice system has the appearance of fairness. If a prosecutor can't convince 12 [purportedly] regular folks that a suspect is guilty of violating a law, then he should go free. On the converse, it shows the defendant and everyone else that it's not some crooked judge throwing the convicted in jail, but 12 people who had to weigh the evidence and agree on a verdict.

Jury nullification is the OPPOSITE of an impartial jury, and which is why we have a voir dire process- to weed out people with preconceptions about the law or the defendant or the circumstances. Rendering a verdict is not a popularity contest, and based on some recent high profile cases, a lot of people seem to think it is.

What we need, frankly, is a way to legitimize jury nullification, so that a jury who refuses to convict on the grounds that they disagree with the law can say so, and some kind of appellate process can occur, even if it is just the citizens telling their legislators to change the law.

Re:Uh oh.

[russotto]

The power of jury nullification certainly exists, and nobody is claiming otherwise -- but it is not an intended power, not in the US.

Given that the writers of the Bill of Rights were almost certainly aware of the 1670 trial of William Penn (where the whole jury went to prison rather than convict him -- now that's mass moral fortitude), it seems hard to believe it was unintended.

Re:Uh oh.

[VAElynx]

Untrue. Because the same purpose is accomplished by appeals, so if it was as you say, nobody in their right time would waste time devising a system which has a jury.
The purpose of the jury is also to hold the results of work of the legislative branch to scrutiny - scrutiny of the common people. See, the problem with all your suggestions is that they are far, far easier said than done.. getting new people in the position, carrying out certain sorts of appeals (most realistic) or a bloody revolution.. Therefore they provide a safe shout-out since it's pretty sure none of that is likely to happen.
On the other hand, if you serve on the jury, you have the right to vote against enforcement of a law you perceive unjust, and if you all agree on it, to strike down such action, providing a precedent for the future. I don't have to be a lawyer to say having a few cases of a jury liberating a guy guilty of something despite overwhelming evidence he did do it (pointing to lack of will to enforce such law) would be a gold mine for the defense lawyer in any further case.
This sort of "arguments" are particularly insidious.. they make it a social standard for people "not" to use their full range of legislative rights, and make them "police themselves" like some posters suggest here... but those same rights are surely mentioned in any other case as a hallmark on freedom and "how can you say the people don't have a word"... That's the difference from most "totalitarian" governments which make the .. perhaps say, blunder of making such things explicitly illegal or impossible. After all, you don't feel caged if you don't notice the bars and are persuaded world ends behind that steel grid over there.

Re:Uh oh.

[hairyfeet]

Yes but you CAN save a life. When my mom was on jury duty she came in after it was over white as a sheet and said 'Don't you EVER get a jury trial always ask for a judge!" and when I asked her what was wrong here was what I was told:

The case was arson of a restaurant, there was NO motive, as the guy didn't even have enough insurance to cover what he owed and had to file chap 11, there was NO evidence as even the fire investigator said he couldn't say with any certainty WHAT had started the fire and the place had already had two close calls thanks to wiring shorts, yet the jury wanted to convict and it was only my mom that hung them up, why? "Because he is Italian and Italians are in the mob and burn buildings, didn't you ever see goodfellas?"

That's right folks, your system at work. the man nearly lost 20 years of his life because of a ray liotta movie. the jury didn't care about a thing said in the court other than the fact he was Italian. If it hadn't been for my mom it really would have been "12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty". Now would you REALLY want to bet your life on the hope there is a single smart one in the pile of morons? I'm glad the guy is gonna do his jury duty but I bet when its over he too will have a nice horror story about how fucking DUMB the American public has become. it is truly "March of the morons" out there folks. Scary huh?

Re:Uh oh.

[AxeMurder]

I was on a jury once and was pleasantly surprised at my fellow jurors' intelligence. Everybody there seemed interested in following the process correctly and to the best of our ability. Our discussions were insightful and I feel the experience was a very valuable one for me.

Re:Uh oh.

[mysidia]

Jury nullification is only good for overturning specific unjust laws, not for reversing the course of the entire nation.

Jury nullification doesn't overturn the unjust law, if successful, it just prevents the unjust law's penalty from taking effect against that specific defendant in that specific case where the jury decided the law was unjust and found innocent on the basis of law.

If the person does it again and gets arrested again, they could still be tried and convicted by a different jury, in the very same jurisdiction, for violating the very same unjust law.

Their exoneration by jury nullification once doesn't change the law, or protect anyone else.

There's no strong likelihood that jury nullification over the same injustice will be repeated consistently.

Re:Uh oh.

[NormalVisual]

My experience with jury duty was similar. All of the jurors were intelligent and genuinely concerned about arriving at a just verdict. It was a DUI case, and while every single one of us thought the defendant was a scumbag and was pretty sure he had in fact been driving drunk, we also unanimously agreed that the state had failed miserably to meet the burden of proof and that there was enough reasonable doubt to justify a "not guilty" verdict. It wasn't a "CSI" kind of thing either, and wasn't so much for lack of evidence as that the cops dropped the ball pretty much every step of the way and destroyed what should have been a solid case.

Re:Uh oh.

[NormalVisual]

You are violating the trust society put in you

No more than a cop enforcing a bad law violates the trust society places in him. Jury nullification is part of the checks and balances of our three-branch system of government. The legislature can choose not to pass a bad law, but if they do the executive can choose not to enforce it, and if all else fails the judiciary (via the jury) can choose not to convict under it.

Re:Uh oh.

[GrumpySteen]

I don't think you understand what the term jury nullification means.

Jury nullification doesn't refer to the jury being nullified for doing something wrong like tweeting during a trial. It refers to the jury's right to make a decision that goes against written law if they feel that the application of that law to the defendant would be an injustice.

Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phones?

[Osgeld]

Obviously this is becoming a problem because you don't need to be on the phone to be on the phone anymore, simple solution is to give the juror's an emergency hotline number to pass out (if the mom dies or something) and take away the damned phones during trial.

Contrary to popular belief you will not die if you are not able to operate a telephone computer device for the length of a day.

So what?

[pla]

I can understand why jurors shouldn't receive outside information about the trial (though have a personal bone over expecting experts to magically forget everything they know for the purposes of serving on a jury).

But non-detail-bearing outbound messages? Seriously, so what? That has no effect on the actual trial or the defendant's ability to enjoy the due process of law leading to a more-or-less fair verdict.

Re:So what?

[Torinir]

However, the judge has to consider the possibility that the juror may have received DMs on Twitter that may actually impact the trial. This is why jurors are sequestered in the first place, to prevent outside communications from impacting the jury's decision.

Re:So what?

[Nidi62]

I can understand why jurors shouldn't receive outside information about the trial (though have a personal bone over expecting experts to magically forget everything they know for the purposes of serving on a jury). But non-detail-bearing outbound messages? Seriously, so what? That has no effect on the actual trial or the defendant's ability to enjoy the due process of law leading to a more-or-less fair verdict.

How do you know the juror hasn't already been compromised, and is sending out information regarding the direction of deliberation in a predetermined code? For all you know, "the coffee here sucks" could mean that the deliberation is going against the way the tampering party wants. Hell, it could even be code aimed at a news outlet so that they can get the scoop, by knowing what the verdict is trending towards beforehand? And if information can go out, information can be going in as well. If a juror has access to his twitter account, he has access to anyone who associated them with that account (like a follower), or targets him with a post. The goal of rules such as this is to attempt to avoid any appearance of impropriety or impartiality, whether there is any or not.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get a fair verdict when one of the jurors fell asleep and the one looked at a murder trial as some mundane routine. Those jurors had someone's life in their hands and that's how they approached the trial? It's disgraceful and both of them should seriously rethink their entire lives. It's pathetic and the defendant absolutely deserves a second trial with jurors who take their responsibility seriously.

Re:So what?

[hedwards]

Because it gives the parties involved a way of gauging the status of various jurors. But mostly because it's easier to order a jury not to discuss, investigate, avoid hearing about or speaking about the case at all than it is to set up a set of rules that govern where exactly the line is.

Ultimately it was presumably in the judges instructions and orders from the beginning that they were not to engage in that activity and report any accidental exposure to the bailiff. Or at least that's how it was when I was on jury duty.

Re:So what?

[hey!]

Simple. Juror is ordered not to post anything on the Internet. Juror *disregards* the order, therefore juror has shown he can't be trusted to follow instructions the judge has given him.

You can't undo an execution, nor can you compensate the executed person if the conviction was in error. If you're considering killing a man, common decency demands you at least provide him with a jury that can be trusted to follow instructions.

Re:So what?

[swalve]

It's the same reason why cameras and recording devices aren't allowed in most courtrooms. It is purported to cause the people in the courtroom to behave differently.

And the reason why experts are asked to "forget" what they know is because all that is relevant is the facts and evidence as presented in the courtroom.

Re:So what?

[pla]

How do you get a fair verdict when one of the jurors fell asleep and the one looked at a murder trial as some mundane routine

For one, it very clearly shows that they had no emotional involvement in the outcome. If I ever found myself as the defendant in such a case, I'd take disinterested jurors over passionate ones in a frickin' heartbeat.

As for falling asleep, I will agree that goes a bit too far. That said, I don't know that I'd do any better listening to lawyers babble for hours on end in a language that sounds like English but has only a superficial resemblance thereto. After a week, or three, or more, of that - Could you honestly claim that you'd give "let's ask the same question again with one word changed" your full attention, just after lunch and after the asshats in the hotel room above yours partied until 2am?

Re:So what?

[Anonymus]

Jury duty is not a paying job, it's your duty (hence the name) to help keep a just society functioning.

If anything, your payment is living in a land that isn't (yet) totalitarian. Avoiding jury duty is as bad for society as skipping out on paying taxes.

Re:So what?

[pla]

and im sure the Labor board would love to hear about somebody getting canned over Jury Duty since i think that is one of the things IT IS A FELONY TO FIRE OVER.

Nobody actually gets fired for serving on jury duty... or taking maternity leave... or putting in their obligatory National Guard time.

Funny, though, how much discretion your employer has on who gets promoted, who gets raises, who gets sacked when hard times come.

Re:So what?

[Trepidity]

I don't see why we can't pay jurors some modest amount, though. Surely it's in all our interests to keep a justice system functioning. Occasionally, trials take a long time, so a jury may be sequestered for weeks. Why should the cost be borne entirely by the people who, by random chance, end up on the jury for such trials, especially since they're already sacrificing in other ways (e.g. not seeing their families or attending to other business for weeks)? The financial burden, at least, seems like it could be generally shared by taxpayers, at least to the level of reimbursing them at minimum wage.

Re:So what?

[gl4ss]

only use homeless people for the jurys.

seriously.

Need a new law

[Nidi62]

Any type of incident such as this should be considered obstruction of justice, or at least contempt of court, and should come with a fine and/or jail sentence(if only a few days). Jurors not paying attention or disregarding orders can cost lives (either by sentencing an innocent man to death, or freeing an actual murderer and allowing him to kill again). Jury duty is not something that should be taken lightly, and is one of the few things the government asks you to do in regards to civic duty. A lot of people can't even do this right, or don't want to. People want so much from the government, but they can't even be bothered to do one simple thing like pay attention and do your duty.

Re:Need a new law

[Nidi62]

Any type of incident such as this should be considered obstruction of justice, or at least contempt of court, and should come with a fine and/or jail sentence Sure - Just as soon as jury duty becomes purely voluntary (and don't give me "then just don't register to vote"), or at the very least, easily deferrable to any convenient time within the next year or so once notified. What we have now amounts to nothing short of indentured servitude if you want to actually exercise your right to vote. At any time, they can call you in and unless you have a damned good reason, you can find the next few weeks of your life suddenly unavailable to you (and Zeus help you if you actually get called for any sort of high-profile capital case, unless you like the thought of effectively living in solitary confinement for six months).

You are provided with police service, fire service, protection from foreign enemies, insurance against money loss, unemployment if you can't get a job, medical assistance for those that are retired/too poor to afford it, food if you cannot afford it, infrastructure, and various environmental and consumer protections, to name a few. The government asks of you only 2 (or 3, if you are male) things: pay your taxes, enter the selective service (for males), and participate in jury duty. For all the government does, and all the people that sacrifice years of their lives (if not all of their lives) so that you can have all of these things, I think you can sacrifice a few weeks. Like I said, this is what is wrong with this country, at all levels. It's not "give and take" anymore. It's "see how much I can take, and how little I can give".

Re:Need a new law

[halln]

At no point in the article is it stated that these tweets were made while the trial was in progress. Do jurors only drink coffee while listening to testimony? They are given breaks and can drink coffee when they aren't in court. While I agree that jury duty is just that, your duty, I don't believe these instances should fall under anything other than being stupid.

Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon

[Tsingi]

Contrary to popular belief you will not die if you are not able to operate a telephone computer device for the length of a day.

My daughter disagrees with you. She has lost several phones. Each loss is superceded by a grave illness, the cure for which can only be the acquisition of another phone.

...what.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't even know you were allowed to have your phone with you. I haven't personally had jury duty, but the rest of my family has and they said they were told to leave their phones in their cars. In fact, my family didn't even tell each other about any details of the case until after the trial, and we never asked. None of our business.

It boggles the mind that people think these things are okay. I don't know when or where I learned it, but I have it ingrained in me that until the trial is over, what happens in court, stays in court. Including how bad the coffee is.

That juror is a moron and deserves punishment. If I was the family of the murdered kid, I would be furious and incredibly upset. I'm sure he'll get convicted again anyway, but that's not the point. Having to go through the process again, especially after hearing the first time the guilty verdict. That has got to suck.

Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon

[Nidi62]

Or sentence the jurors to the maximum sentence possible, based on the criminal charges against the defendant.

No, that's too harsh. I say that, if you are caught doing this during the course of a trial, you are removed, your replacement comes in, and you are confined for the rest of the trial. If it comes out after a trial that you did this and there is a mistrial/retrial, then you should be confined for the duration of that trial. That way people realize that this is a serious duty.

Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, the fact that the jurors had their phones with them provided valuable evidence of them absolutely not giving a fuck about a fairly important matter(It's only some guy being charged with murder, this isn't going to be on the test, right your honor?). In a way, it might be more valuable to leave people the means to easily and verifiably show that they are slacking off, rather than force them to slack off in more silent ways...

Seriously, tweeting about coffee and falling asleep during presentation of evidence, in a case about something slightly graver than a parking ticket?

I suppose the downside of a jury of one's peers is that one's peers are dangerously likely to be fuckwits with an attention span challenged by most commercial breaks...

Re:Racially Biased Decision

[hedwards]

No, they did it because the trial was compromised and they couldn't be sure that the defendant had received a fair trial. If they wanted to let a white man off the hook they could have ordered him freed without a new trial.

Poor Reasoning

[Fulminata]

"Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote 'because of the very nature of Twitter as an... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions.'"

A discussion, by definition, requires the participation of more than one person. So, Justice Corbin is incorrect. The juror made a public statement, but did not engage in a public discussion. It may be mostly a matter of semantics, but in this case it's also the difference between something that could have changed the outcome of the verdict and something which obviously did not.

The juror behaved inappropriately, but not in such a way that could have influenced the outcome of a verdict, so the verdict should have been upheld.

No coffee tweet mentioned in the opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

From the opinion:

THE COURT
: Okay. It’s says: Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken. Weeach define the great line. About 20 hours ago via text. Now what does that mean?

  JUROR
[2]: What it means was, um, not only like to pertain to this case butalso to future stuff. Um, obviously, whatever we as a jury decide – you know, I’m notnecessarily saying I know what’s going to be decided, but we have to decide – makea huge decision. Either way, you know, if we do decide something like it’s just gonna – a lot of people are either going to be mad about it watching the news because, youknow, people have expressed to me you’re on that court case, right? I can’t talk aboutit. So I leave. So there’s a ton of people watching this. And either way we decide,people are either going to be angry or people are going to be hurt either way. Sowhat I was meaning by that was, you know, we have to define the great line of, youknow, where we stand on a subject and, you know, what we have to choose – decidein the future. And also “Define the Great Line” was an Underoath album, and Ithought I’d throw that in there along with my tweet.

THE COURT
: Well, have you already made up your mind in this case what you’re going to – how you’re going to vote?

JUROR
[2]: No, because I’m waiting for the other 11 to help me come to aconclusion.

THE COURT
: All right.

The opinion never mentioned the coffee tweet, but it did mention what tweets were much more of a flagrant violation of do not discuss the case outside of the court room. I do agree that it seems like Juror 2 was having a tough time with the case, and with the possible verdict and punishment. I think the court correctly overturned the conviction.

but they pay less then minimum wage

[Joe_Dragon]

also some people can't take time out of work to do jury duty and others make up stuff to get out of it.

But at least paying more will make it go a long with it being a serious duty.

If WE want better jurors why can't we at least pay min wage or higher?

Re:but they pay less then minimum wage

[_0xd0ad]

also some people can't take time out of work to do jury duty

Their employer is required, by law, to give them time off for jury duty.

YAWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the full opinion. The trial decision was reversed and remanded for many reasons, only one of which was juror misconduct. The juror misconduct charge came about from the juror not following the judge's direction not to use social media. The judge actually determined that the tweets did not harm the defendant.

Consider this

[Anonymous Coward]

While I tend to agree with you about jury nullification, what about this?

Muslim man kils his wife because she attempts to divorce him. Jury picked from the local population, which just happens to be a mostly Muslim community, refuses to convict him of murder because they believe, contrary to the law of the land, that his actions were justified.

Food for thought.

Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

On television, you get a lot of people who don't say "it depends." I'd rather have my friends say "it depends" about most things--there is nuance in life.

Especially on an issue like jury nullification, there are MASSIVE reasons why sometimes it should be used and sometimes it should not be. If your police are being abusive or your prosecutors are prosecuting people they have no business prosecuting or your legislature is passing unjust laws or your judge is not giving someone a fair trial, it may be that jury nullification is your best option as a juror.

On the other hand, jury nullification is most often used as a tool of a racist to show solidarity with a defendant from his or her race, rather than for a reasoned moral purpose. This is blatant racism and is bad.

Though the latter is more frequent than the former, the importance of the former--and the administrative problem with preventing jury nullification while still allowing the jury to have any meaningful power--is significant.

Re:Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Administratively, you can't prevent jury nullification without policing jury decision-making. But that is problematic because you run into the problem of the judge who throws the jury in jail because they make the "wrong" decision. (Actually happened a few centuries ago.) In effect, the jury right now gets to make a decision which basically can't be reviewed. The alternative is to give someone the power to say that a jury which held someone had not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is lying.

You could police that jury decision by allowing someone in the jury room to listen to how they made the decision and prevent them from making it based on something other than law. But that person would have effectively more power than the judge, and the jury would effectively have none.

You could also retry people. Double jeopardy presents issues, though.

Re:Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification

[LVSlushdat]

But that is problematic because you run into the problem of the judge who throws the jury in jail because they make the "wrong" decision. (Actually happened a few centuries ago.)

Actually it happened right here in the good ole' USA about 6 years ago. Federal Judge Kent Dawson, who presided over the trial of Irwin Schiff, a well-known "income tax" protester, instructed the jury that they MUST find Mr Schiff guilty on all counts or THEY would would be personally guilty of a federal crime. NONE of the prosecutions allegations were proven, and all defenses Mr Schiff's attorney provided were disallowed by this judge. Since I live in Las Vegas, which is where the trial was held, I attended as much of the trial as I could. I nearly became violently ill when I heard this black-robed monster give these jury instructions. Several months after the trial, it came out that several jurors on the trial who were aware of jury nulliication stated they would have voted to acquit, but for the chilling effect of that jury instruction. Apparently none of these jurors had the cojones to ask the judge to please quote the law that he would charge them with should they vote to acquit. I guess I really don't blame them since these black-robed terrorists have all the power (in their mind). Several other high-profile tax protestor cases were found not-guilty despite the same "kangaroo-court" atmosphere during their trials. Trials like Mr Schiffs I would have expected to see back in the old soviet union days in Russia, NOT the USA...

Re:Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It depends on the facts.

Prosecutorial discretion is very large. Frequently the wrong decisions are made. Prosecuting a child when a group of children are playing with a gun, it goes off, and someone dies. Prosecuting someone who is insane as if they were not. Prosecuting someone for political reasons rather than because it makes sense. Sometimes a verdict of not guilty is the right result even when someone is guilty, because the consequences of a guilty verdict are more harmful than helpful.

The political process is deeply flawed, and legislative bodies will almost never vote to reduce sentences or decriminalize activities because that is rarely politically popular.

There is a difference between ex-post and ex-ante decisionmaking. In front of a house, one makes a judgment between alternative acts, and the law is one factor that weighs heavily in those alternatives. In a jury, one decides what the consequences of that choice should be beyond those already encountered.

A judge has plenty of immunity. He also has a massive amount of "discretion." If a judge applies all of his discretion in favor of one party, it effectively creates an unfair trial--at the very least an unjust one--even though there is no room for review on appeal.

Where is your hate crimes claim from?

Re:Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification

[Kjella]

Federal Judge Kent Dawson, who presided over the trial of Irwin Schiff, a well-known "income tax" protester, instructed the jury that they MUST find Mr Schiff guilty on all counts or THEY would would be personally guilty of a federal crime. (...) Several months after the trial, it came out that several jurors on the trial who were aware of jury nulliication stated they would have voted to acquit, but for the chilling effect of that jury instruction.

I'd love to see what would happen if a juror said "By the fifth amendment of the US constitution, specifically the right against self-incrimination, I refuse to render a verdict." That would have become a funny process....

Re:Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification

[Renraku]

You can pretty easily prevent jury nullification by ensuring that your jury is comprised of only the most ignorant people that answer the selection questions favorably enough that you can subconsciously feed them a verdict before they even deliberate at the end of the trial.

For example: Using definitive words. The defendant murdered the woman. When the defendant entered the house. When the defendant stabbed his wife. When the defendant buried her. Etc. Sometimes a judge will pick up on them and shoot it down, but many times they do not.

Or simply allowing the brainwashed to convict based on faulty evidence because the crime was so bad. Example: I don't want drug dealers hanging around on the street corner near my house, do you? The defendant was clearly about to set up shop. What else could you do with an entire GRAM of marijuana?? Why, after even smoking a little bit of it for 'personal consumption' you would no longer be allowed to drive or do many other things because you would be so impaired!

Re:a serious duty should pay more as well

[DarkOx]

I don't think you understand the word duty its something you must do. Even if you were not compensated at all it would still be your duty. Occasional jury duty is just one of the many prices we must pay for living in a free society.

Look at this way unlike your taxes, which are all to often stolen by some corporate welfare fat cat, at some justice will be done when you serve on jury.

Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon

[Miseph]

How about we split the difference and call it contempt of court?

You know, that crime that already exists, and doesn't run afoul of the 8th Amendment?

re: jury didn't believe he killed her

[King_TJ]

Frankly, I don't see any problem with the scenario you described?

A court case involving a jury *should* be about what they believe took place (or didn't take place), based upon all of the evidence and arguments brought before them. If the engineer types are fixated on scientific evidence showing a person incinerated his wife's body so want to find him guilty, but nobody else on that jury is sold on it for whatever other reasons -- then perhaps the guy should go free?

It's the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury that the evidence supports his claims. Not everyone has a technical background, and not everyone who does is very good at thinking "outside the box" either, in cases where maybe there's an alternate explanation for the events to the one they're so certain took place by focusing strictly on the technical details?

Scientists and engineers are wrong sometimes, after all. We have bridges that collapsed shortly after being built, presumably by engineers who were confident they constructed it in a sound manner.....

Bad decision

[laing]

I don't tweet, but I have served on several juries. The judge always admonishes the jury to not discuss the trial until after it's over. The judge does not prevent any and all contact with other people, only contact related to the proceedings. Tweeting is not much different than talking and this juror was not sequestered and not talking about the case. I see this as a bad decision. (I cannot read the whole decision itself. Only the first few pages appear at the link from TFA.)

Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon

[LordLucless]

Have you ever been on jury duty? I was on a case that ran for a week. For about 80% of the time, we weren't in the courtroom - the lawyers were arguing about legal technicalities that the jury wasn't allowed to hear before the judge ruled who was right. On a number of days, we came in, went into the court for its opening, went straight to the jury room, and stayed there for the entire day, returning to the court only for its close at the end of the day. It was even a fairly open and shut case as far as the jury was concerned. And it was bloody boring. If I hadn't had some sort of way to pass the time, I would have gone bonkers. As it was, I brought a book. These days, since I tend to read ebooks on my phone, I would not be impressed if they took it away and made me sit and stare at a wall all day.

That sword cuts both ways

[LrdDimwit]

Jury nullification is also a great way to enact tyranny of the majority. How many white people went to jail for lynching black people in the thirties? And then there's this case where it's kind of hard to avoid the implication that the jury thought it was okay to kill gays.

Jury nullification yes, can be used to fight oppression by the system, like the Fugitive Slave Law. But it's also great for trial-by-popularity-contest. The entire point of jury nullification is "screw the rules, I'm going to do what's 'right'". Sometimes that works, but jury nullification makes no distinction between good parts of the system, and bad parts.

Many parts of the system are there to protect the fair interests of justice. Juries can nullify them too. The rules over what evidence is admissible, for example - most juries aren't physically sequestered in a room with no phone and no internet the entire duration of the trial. They can easily search the internet for all kinds of half-baked "evidence". The judge is supposed to keep all that out of court, because it's unverified, or scientifically dubious, etc.

Jury nullification is an incredibly dangerous thing. It is not justice at all, because it is fundamentally capricious in nature. Justice is supposed to be the same for everybody.

Re:a serious duty should pay more as well

[drsmithy]

The proper solution is a law requiring employers to treat Jury Duty the same as paid leave.