Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge To Newspaper - Reveal Name of Commenter

Posted by samzenpus on from the naming-names dept.

First time accepted submitter Andy Prough writes "A Kansas judge has ordered a Topeka newspaper to release the name of a commenter on one of its stories about the trial of Anceo D. Stovall for the murder of Natalie Gibson. Using the name 'BePrepared,' the commenter posted the following in response to a story about the ongoing trial on July 21 at 1:45pm: 'Trust me that's all they got in their little world, as you know, I have been there. Remember the pukes names they will do it for ever.' The problem? The court is convinced that 'BePrepared' was a juror, and was not supposed to be accessing news about the trial before it ended on July 24th. The court wants BePrepared's name, address and IP address. The jury was ultimately unable to find Stovall guilty of 10 of the 11 charges against him — including murder. Both defense and prosecution lawyers appear to want a new trial, and if it turns out that BePrepared was a juror, they are more likely to get their wish."

4 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. News? by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    News why?

    - Juror suspected of perjury.
    - Court issues order to place that published posts which have a reasonable chance of providing evidence of said perjury, to provide the bare minimum of information to identify the poster.
    - If it's not him, end of case.
    - If it is him, file for mistrial, pursue conviction against him.

    Why is this news? This is bog-standard legal procedure for any medium whatsoever (e.g. newspaper letters page would be the same, or CCTV of him in a pub meeting the defendant, or whatever).

    Because "The Internet" means you should be anonymous, untraceable and able to commit criminal acts? Is that the logic?

    1. Re:News? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, because if I were on trial, I'd want a bunch of morons on the jury. Only idiots brag about getting out of jury duty. The idea is that you approach it as a civic duty and you hope to hell your jury members do too if you're ever on trial.

    2. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last time I had jury duty I could easily have gotten out of it, but chose instead to be a productive citizen and not do so.

      Anyone who approaches jury duty with the "I want out of this" attitude should certainly not be sitting on one. They are far less likely to take the responsibility seriously, thus leading to dumb fucking decisions like the Samsung/Apple $1bn judgement.

    3. Re:News? by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People get the government they deserve. If you can’t take time out of your life to ensure that we have a civil and just society, don’t expect society to be civil and just.

      Oh, and vote next Tuesday.