Slashdot Mirror
Judge To Newspaper - Reveal Name of Commenter
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."
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?
I don't really have a problem if they're investigating whether a juror made the posting.
Assuming that, if the poster was not a juror, they will retain their anonymity.
The "release the name" isn't "print it in the newspaper", it's released to the court, which won't release it further... will it?
What precedent? The newspaper is under no obligation to hand over whatever information that it has without a court order, including a simple "Yes/No" answer to an unofficial query from the judge about whether the poster was a member of the jury as a first step in a formal request for the information. A court order makes it official, legally binding, and covers the newspaper from any issues about revealling sources and such like. As long as the information goes straight into the judge's shredder should it turn out that the poster wasn't a member of the jury, then no harm and most definitely no foul.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
...so the alternative to giving a public speaker's name to the government is that a juror's name is released to a newspaper?
Now that's a dangerous precedent...
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If you remove the Internet from the equation, how does it look?
A credit card was used at Location X and the card is suspected to belong to John Doe, who is not lawfully allowed at Location X. The police request enough information to determine whether the card belonged to John Doe or not. If the card does not belong to John Doe, the matter will be dropped. If it does belong to John Doe, then the matter will be pursued as a violation of John Doe being at Location X unlawfully, but the credit charge itself is perfectly legal and will not be held against John Doe other than as evidence of being at Location X.
How does anybody read that gibberish and come to the conclusion that the commentor is a juror? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense?
They don't need the name of the person, they need to know that it is NOT ______________. You shouldn't reveal all the cards, but rather reveal that it is not 4 aces.
Nowhere does it say that. It says they were not able to find him guilty. It has to be unanimous to either find innocent or guilty, and it wasn't.
I've only been a juror on one trial, but my impression was that the judge was accepting rather lame excuses from people who wanted to get out. Perhaps he felt the same way you do.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The problem for many would be compensation. I'd be happy to be on a jury if I could be financially compensated in a way that adequately covers my absence from work. A few days I could handle, but if I somehow got stuck on a "big case" that ran for months it would be a significant financial hardship.
Doing your civic duty is a good thing, but doing so and not being able to pay your bills isn't so much. It's not good for those on the jury, and it's not good for the accused as a bunch of disgruntled and financially hurting jurors are more likely to make snap decisions based on their desire to get out of the box.
He was found innocent of 10 of the 11 charges.
For the defense, that's 1 too many. For the prosecution, that's 10 too few. I'm sure there's more to it, but...
That's exactly how I saw it.