Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judges Wary of Facebook, Twitter Impact On Juries
coondoggie writes "The impact of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Google+ and others on federal juries is a concern that judges are frequently taking steps to curb. According to a study 94% of the 508 federal judges who responded said they have specifically barred jurors from any case-connected use of social media."
to start crowdsourcing juries, I mean why bother having 12 people show up ina room when you got half the country saying hes guilty before the trial starts on facebook!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Or better yet, hangman on your iPhone with the cute guy/gal sitting next to you in the jury box.
Better than Facebook anyway!
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
Pfft! Slashdot isn't Social...
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
IMO rules about this sort of thing fall into the category of "people really shouldn't need to be told".
When you participate on a jury, you are prohibited from communicating anything related to the case with anybody outside of the jury deliberation chambers. End of story. Whether you communicate the information face-to-face, via e-mail, or through Facebook or Twitter really shouldn't matter.
But of course there are idiots throughout society, so multiple, redundant rules need to be enacted to try and prevent problems.
Being a juror stinks - I think most everyone agrees on that. But the rationale behind restrictions like this makes sense: communication about the case outside the courtroom may result in a juror's opinion being changed by friends, family, Facebook contacts, etc.
It's hard for some people to slow down and refrain from tweeting of Facebook posting every last thing they do every day... but I'm sure we'd all appreciate a fair trial without undue influence from bystanders who don't know all of the facts if we ever find ourselves seated at the defendant's table one day...
This is one time when following the rules can have enormous consequences. Far too many people see jury duty as a joke, or otherwise don't follow the rules in other areas of their life (parking in handicapped spots to run into the store for "just a minute," taking things from work because "nobody will miss it") and this transfers to abiding by the rules set forth by the judge at trial. It's a joke for some people - and that's just disrespectful.
(reposting, as myself.)
IMO rules about this sort of thing fall into the category of "people really shouldn't need to be told".
When you participate on a jury, you are prohibited from communicating anything related to the case with anybody outside of the jury deliberation chambers. End of story. Whether you communicate the information face-to-face, via e-mail, or through Facebook or Twitter really shouldn't matter.
But of course there are idiots throughout society, so multiple, redundant rules need to be enacted to try and prevent problems.
I don't see why social media should be treated differently than any other media with respect to jurors. It's simple: don't expose yourself to prejudicial opinions or information. Adding "social media" to the list of sources that can contaminate a jury just shows that judges know their business. Nothing to see here, move along.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The first instruction of the jury is always "do not research or discuss the case outside the courtroom". 40 years ago this meant not to watch the evening news or read the morning paper .. now it means not to read wikipedia or tweet about it.
I suppose the real difference here is it's a lot easier for the defense to find out about later and win an appeal ("your honor, Juror #6 tweeted X about Y during the trial") whereas 40 years ago you could just say "I made my wife get the paper".
google+ has an impact on something? this is news!
In England, a juror was jailed last year for communicating with an acquitted defendant on Facebook: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/16/facebook-juror-jailed-for-eight-months
And another was jailed last week for researching the defendant on the internet generally: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research
I know, at times it borders on anti-social
It's hard for me to imagine that, mostly because criminals aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Why on earth would anyone committing the crimes of (off the top of my head) jury tampering, intimidation and obstruction of justice do so in a medium that is both public and preserved for posterity by the web server? Even if it's a veiled threat, that's treading on pretty freakin' thin ice.
Porquoi?
Then you report it, immediately. No different than a phone call at home, or a 'visit' by some friendly guy on a Saturday afternoon.
Report it, and let the judge/prosecution/defense work it out.
1. The use of mobile technology may be very important towards educating jurors during their jury duty. It may be important for them to research case law and to educate themselves about various aspects of the case.
2. If their opinions can be so easily swayed by FB/Twitter, I don't want them being jurors, ever.
After all, everyone likes sex, so we have that in common.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1848: Federal judges wary of mail impact on juries
1898: Federal judges wary of telephone impact on juries
1918: Federal judges wary of radio impact on juries
1948: Federal judges wary of television impact on juries
1978: Federal judges wary of satellite impact on juries
1988: Federal judges wary of email impact on juries
1998: Federal judges wary of instant messaging impact on juries
Let's just go with this:
Federal judges wary of communication impact on juries
Why on earth would anyone committing the crimes of (off the top of my head) jury tampering, intimidation and obstruction of justice do so in a medium that is both public and preserved for posterity by the web server?
Because the other people using the social media site aren't necessarily committing a crime when they mention "I heard on the news that the judge ruled that the 18 previous convictions this guy has can't be presented in evidence" or "32 people have come forward claiming this guy raped them, too" or things like that.
There are rules about what can and can't be evidence, none of which the users of social media are bound by but a juror is. Since jurors aren't supposed to be using social media, it would be a hard case to make that someone who posted excluded information was actually trying to tamper with the jury, but the end result would be the same.
All so-called "social media" is at its core anti-social.
As for barring jurors from using facebook and twitter, jurors should be barred from EVER discussing deliberations (like they are in Kanuckistan) or having the media reveal their identity. A jury isn't really independent if they can either be compelled to give the reasons for their decision, or motivated to do so by money or because they are afraid of what the neighbors might think.
Judges in the US quit representing the rights of people a LONG time ago.
All they do is screw you if you aren't rich or powerful, and let you slide if you are.
The only people who still respect the system in the US are naive fools who have
no idea how quickly the system will turn on them if it suits the needs of those in power.
Judges were never supposed to represent the rights of people. Nor the rights of the state.
They are there to be impartial and enforce the rules of the court to assure the fairest possible trial.
You sound like someone who has had his bail revoked once too many times.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
While I understand your cynicism, I believe it to be a bit misplaced in this instance. These rules are to protect the rights of the people. Specifically, the defendant.
Also, I don't believe the situation to be quite so hopeless as you put forth. When I last served on a jury, I was picked to be the "extra guy" (unsure of the proper term), so I didn't get to join in deliberations. Instead, the judge called me into his chambers. I felt this was a bit odd, but he just wanted to talk about my jury duty experience, and any way they could try and make it better for the jurors. He (and I suspect most other court staff) was well aware of the generally negative perception of Jury duty, and wanted to try and help fix that. That concern was genuine, and not required of him in any capacity.
I have never spoken to another judge in the same manner, so I have but one data point to give, but its a very promising and hopeful data point. I think it has a little smiley face on it, actually.
It's official: iOS now has more marketshare than Android.
In other news, Britney Spears has more market share than Julie Fowlis. And guess what: Who the hell cares?
Ezekiel 23:20
It's not hard for me to imagine a defendant having a 3rd party make a post on a juror's Facebook page. Maybe just a veiled threat that only the juror would recognize. It's not just outside information (unvetted) - criminals could use it to influence the outcome of a trial. It will happen, if it hasn't already.
Online bullying the jury anyone?
Simple: Don't read your facebook page for the duration. A threat not viewed is not going to influence you.
Please tell me you aren't THAT addicted that you can't communicate via email or (shudder) phone calls with those people you need to keep in DAILY touch with for the week or so you might serve on a jury. There is life on earth without Facebook.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Except in very unusual cases jury nullification is going about things the wrong way.
Let's say there is a law against driving a car on Sundays in Indiana. OK, it is a stupid law, but it is only in Indiana after all. First case comes to trial and everyone is saying what a stupid law it is - but the case results in a conviction. After that it seems that about 60% of the time the jury just decides it is too stupid a law and refuses - against instructions - to convict.
What we have instead of getting the law repealed is 40% of the time the law is still enforced and results in a conviction. Maybe the penalty is a $10 fine but that is irrelevent. The point is that what is needed is repeal of laws, not juries independently and inconsistently ignoring them. It might have this effect if 100% of the time the jury refused to convict in spite of obvious and clear evidence to the contrary. But this is the US and nothing is ever 100%.
This is a clear-cut case of pacification them trying to divide us Thinking that it would matter to you. ahw we promise to leave your Facebook alone they're just blowing smoke up your ass . it's all or nothing please understand that the bank cartels conglomerates Human rights thieves. Whatever you want to call them . Mean to control the entire world and their Being damn blatant about it lately if you don't draw a line in the sand they'll just keep taking. They don't understand anything but more and more more. Don't get suckered in and stay away from fluoride. And aspartame and everything else they are polluting our food with. infowars.com .check this out you might find it interesting. Alex isn't talking about sopa & pipa too much right now but when all that crap popped off he was all over it. Understand they're not done pushing and if it's not this it will be something else later and probably a lot more subtle .keep your eyes open don't let your liberties slip from your grasp. listen with your eyes and your good sense at this point use our good constitution as your guide .our forefathers had it right but don't let anybody tell you otherwise and for those folks that are in Canada don't let them cram their draconian ideals down your neck .if that old broads hand still reaches far enough to carry any weight in your legal system you need to cut it off."A" you might want to tell Hollywood to stick it in there ass. Canada needs to boycott them if they didn't want people to steal their ideas They shouldn't have published it on the Internet. Sacrificing the rights of the masses in the name of the few is absolutely insane not to mention you can't possibly feel sorry for them when the Internet is just another stream of income for them when they do a movie they get paid one way or the other because they've got insurance in case the damn movie flops so everybody makes out don't let them lie to you yes it's a high-risk venture and their insurance is high but when you make $30 million for a movie you spent $5 million on as this is being generous to Hollywood because they make a great deal more than that most of the time and if they're going to cry about it maybe they ought to re-think the way they do business. if it wasn't for Joe blow Hollywood wouldn't exist all are wile sitting around in their multimillion dollar mansions and their billion-dollar market shares are flowing in let them understand that the Internet Is Hours and there's but if they want to keep sharing it with us. Let them like what we dish out. Their banker buddies Won't let them starve . that is unless they think their not having an effect on us anymore. Remember that Hollywood is owned lock stock and barrel by none other than the people that would throw you in a prison camp and work you tell you starved to death. and until Hollywood figures out how to rid themselves of these people they can always plan on having a pimp standing over them telling them what to do like the prostitutes they are. www.infowars.com "winamp" /Alex Jones . Opt for the free side when you download win amp. And there's a bonus for downloading "winamp" all the free music Your sweet ears can handle I plan to subscribe to winamp very soon. and do yourself a favor and stay away from mainstream media there is very little truth in it unless it's absolutely unavoidable to them another entity that the World Bank's have a stranglehold on if they've got Congress by the short hairs what makes you think they don't control our legal system. They own nations and they're getting damn close to gaining total control over ours. by the way if you have a listen to my recommendations You may not give a damn about mainstream media including Hollywood ever again. If you're not dead from the neck up.
The real question here is why haven't the other 6% of the judges barred jurors from discussing the trial on social media?
Repeal is another side of it, but here is what everybody should understand - the moral thing to do is this: when presented with any law that concerns an individual and the government on the opposite sides, always immediately assume that the government is wrong, and always strike down the law.
Always break the law where it concerns individual vs government, always pay no taxes where you can and try to pay no taxes where the government says you must. Avoid giving any money to the government, avoid agreeing with government on anything always.
Basically the only moral thing to do is always to put the individual above the government. Government is always wrong and the individual is always right.
As to laws that are related to entities that have nothing to do with the government, that is a different story, there it's basically - do no harm.
You can't handle the truth.
0x0c Angry men
Have gnu, will travel.
Not really, he's more a carcinogen. The cancer is people who continually respond to these posts. And seriously, how is this worse than GNAA, other than lacking any semblance of a sense of humour? At least they managed to be amusing on a couple of rare occasions.
The saying goes 'don't feed the trolls' for a reason. Ignore it or mod it down, don't reply and call more attention to it.
And here I go making it worse. :)
I would take it one step further and say that jurors shouldn't even be in the same room as the case they're rendering a verdict on. The lawyers, defendants, hell maybe even the judge, should all be barred from knowing who's on the jury and why. Let it be completely random, with the jury sitting in a room connected via closed-circuit television.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Not really. The know the core reason why people avoid jury duty like the plague. If they paid jurors enough, people would be climbing over the top of each other to get into the jury pool. The only reason they look for ways to make the jury experience better is so that they don't have to pay jurors what they are worth. Judges and some prosecutors earn six figure incomes, paid by the state, yet jurors are lucky to get minimum wage and have their freedom of speech and movement radically restricted for the duration.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
I know, at times it borders on anti-social
Fuck you, you dick-sucking commie-nazi-hippie!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
It's your duty as a citizen to serve on a jury Ayn Rand. It is sad that you think that money is the ONLY motivator for people. And I hate to ruin your fantasy, but many judges in the state courts don't get 6 figure salaries. You need to read President Kennedy's inauguration address or move to Somalia where you can be totally free (and everyone else is to shoot and kidnap you).
Man has issues with ex-wife/girlfriend (ex-spouse).
Ex-spouse pastes a bunch of hatemail on facebook. Opens a blog calling him abuse. Maybe accuses him of child-abuse etc. Maybe she creates a few schill accounts and posts more "evidence". None of it is true, but it's "seeding" for her case
So the man gets accused of something from said ex...
The juror goes online, sees a facebook page and a bunch of blogs which basically describes the guy as an wife-beating, drug-using, child-abuser. Maybe said juror shares it with the others and they manage to *not* get caught doing so.
The man gets convicted to 5 years in child. The woman gets all his assets, and his kids. The man's life is ruined.
All because some dumbf**k couldn't stay off the 'net and believes that everything he/she saw online is true.
So yes. Judges SHOULD be wary of the ability for the web to taint juries, and juries should stay the f*** off the internet when it comes to anything related to the case.
"It's your duty as a citizen to serve on a jury" If you don't want people going out of their way to avoid jury duty, the solution is simple and effective. If you're unwilling to do so then plainly you don't care if people find ways to skate.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11