Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Government The Courts News

Juror Tweets Could Create Mistrial 148

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the cell-jammers-being-installed-next-week dept.
nandemoari writes "Russell Wright and his construction company, Stoam Holdings, recently lost a $12 million dollar lawsuit brought by investors. But lawyers for the firm have complained that juror Johnathan Powell's Twitter comments broke rules when discussing the civil case with the public. The arguments in this dispute center on two points. Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given; if that's the case, the objection would presumably be thrown out. If Powell did post updates during the trial, the judge must decide whether he was actively discussing the case. Powell says he only posted messages and did not read any replies. Intriguingly, the lawyers for Stoam Holding are not arguing so much that other people directly influenced Powell's judgment, rather that he might have felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict to impress the people reading his posts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Juror Tweets Could Create Mistrial

Comments Filter:
  • Tweets? Canary? Sing like a Jailbird?

    C'mon, the irony was practically slapping you in the face Stooge style...

    • I don't know what's worse: that a juror may have compromised a trial, that they let someone who uses twitter decide a 12 million dollar case, or "tweets."

      • by passion (84900)
        I think there's a reason they call people who send those messages twits.
  • Tweet? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by neoform (551705)

    I can't wait til "Twitter" passes and we can stop using retarded words like "tweet".

    Twitter is not some genius website worth the $55,000,000 it's raised. I could recreate the entire site's functionality in 15 minutes.

    • Re:Tweet? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Roane (1075393) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:34PM (#27218249)
      I prefer using the preexisting terminology for Twitter users, "twit".
      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I prefer using the preexisting terminology for Twitter users, "twit".

        I think you mean "silly twat".

    • Re:Tweet? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:36PM (#27218287) Homepage

      I could recreate the entire site's functionality in 15 minutes.

      The functionality isn't what's important, it's the community that is. Plenty of people have done MySpace and Facebook prior to both of them being around (webrings, GeoCities, etc are all related to those two sites) but the biggest draw is the number of users who have latched to make it successful.

      That said, if you come up with a website that has the same (or preferably better) functionality and better network scalability and uptime as well as attract a customer base that rivals Twitter, then by all means go for it. In fact, if it's good enough I'm sure people will eventually make the switch and make you rich.

      Let me know what retarded word you come up with to describe your service's micro-blog posts so that we can make fun of it here and get modded appropriately too.

      • Exactly, I'm sure after the many, many, many, changes to Facebook many users wanted to leave, but if their friends aren't on the other social networking sites, why bother? And until something manages to beat Facebook in terms of ease of use (that part should be easy by now), support (Facebook (and even Twitter) has apps for the Blackberry, iPhone, etc), and features, people aren't going to jump ship in large numbers even if you have managed to tick off about 15% of your users.
        • by iminplaya (723125)

          Ever seen those gigantic flocks of birds instantly change course? It's a hell of a noise... Why can't people do the same? They disappear from one place and all show up on the next. Like a Star Trek transporter...with a bit more "paperwork"...just sign here, and here, and here....and here.....and here...

          • Because unlike most of us, some people simply don't really care about their online community, others rarely get on, etc. For a migration to be successful, everyone has to move at once. Even if two of my college friends that I talk to decide to stay on Facebook rather then move to *shiny new social network* more then likely I will be logging into Facebook every now and then to talk to them, that in Facebook's status doesn't show up as a "lost" customer, only a customer that rarely gets on anymore. Social net
      • by Chyeld (713439)

        From his tone, I imagine he'll call it Bait. messaging will be call baiting, and thus he'll be the master baiter.

      • I'd call it "coccyx".

        What? I meant that it's from the base of the spine.

      • by Atario (673917)

        I like acronyms. How about we call it Fast And Really Tiny? All you FARTers will love FARTing on each other!

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I like acronyms. How about we call it Fast And Really Tiny? All you FARTers will love FARTing on each other!

          Microblog posts will be called "toots." Larger posts will be known as "dumps." The website infrastructure will be described as a collection of Advanced Stratocumulus Servers, and this particular form of cloud computing will be referred to as occurring "in the ASS."

      • by adisakp (705706)

        The functionality isn't what's important, it's the community that is.

        Yup, critical mass is extremely important. It's the reason we're stuck with eBay and Paypal even though BOTH [ebaysucks.com] PRETTY [paypalsucks.org] MUCH [aboutpaypal.org] SUCK [paypalsucks.com].

      • by bytesex (112972)

        That's a lot of words to say that their success is accidental.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I find the term annoying myself. I'd have a lot easier time taking the thing seriously if it had a name like SMS-over-IP. If I pitched it as a campaign avenue to my 60 year old boss, I'd get a response something like "If we're going to send our customers "tweets", we might as well go all out and send them fart blossoms or some other made up nonsense."
      • by ultranova (717540)

        I find the term annoying myself. I'd have a lot easier time taking the thing seriously if it had a name like SMS-over-IP. If I pitched it as a campaign avenue to my 60 year old boss, I'd get a response something like "If we're going to send our customers "tweets", we might as well go all out and send them fart blossoms or some other made up nonsense."

        So what you're saying is that a silly name protects a service from spam? Thanks, that's an important consideration when deploying new ones.

    • [Iron Chef Public Address Voice] SEVEN MINUTES ARE GONE.

      EIGHT MINUTES REMAIN.

      If you don't believe me check the clock on the mantle. I've used it dozens of times. I'm qualified to discuss time.

      E

    • Re:Tweet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by treeves (963993) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:36PM (#27219673) Homepage Journal

      That's like the thought process of someone looking at an abstract painting, like a Jackson Pollock, and saying, 'My five year old could have done that!"
      The point is, you didn't, they did, and you can only wish that you had.

      • That's like the thought process of someone looking at an abstract painting, like a Jackson Pollock, and saying, 'My five year old could have done that!"
        The point is, you didn't, they did, and you can only wish that you had.

        I can wish I could get the same sort of money for doing equal nonsense, that's for sure. Other than that - what's wrong with such a thought process in the "abstract painting" case?

        • by treeves (963993)
          Factually, nothing, at least taken as an isolated event. But hindsight is not the same as foresight. Your five-year old can't explain to the gallery why they should buy his work (i.e. ascribe the deeper meaning to it that the buyer wants, create a coherent body of work, not just a one-off slopping paint on a canvas, etc.) I'm really out of my league answering this question, as I majored in chemical engineering not art history, and I'd rather not switch over to a car analogy at this point, but that's my 2 c
  • by rm999 (775449) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:25PM (#27218127)

    He made tweets like:

    "So, Johnathan, what did you do today?' Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money!"
    and
    "Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo, and they'll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter. http://www.stoam.com/ [stoam.com]."

    He was clearly show-boating for his tweeter fans, even if in jest. Therefore, I do think there is a chance that he "felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict to impress the people reading his posts."

    While it is sucks that there may have to be a retrial, the important of impartial justice supersedes the inconvenience.

    • by SpottedKuh (855161) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:36PM (#27218277)

      While it is sucks that there may have to be a retrial, the important of impartial justice supersedes the inconvenience.

      If only I had mod points. The potential issue is that a juror may have been showboating (i.e., not being impartial). The fact that it was done using Twitter is irrelevant. It's really no different than if he went home and said these things to everyone in person...except that the lawyers probably wouldn't have known about it then.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by lymond01 (314120)

        I don't think the lawyers have anything here. Whether you email all your friends afterwards, step out on the courthouse lawn and scream it, or gloat about it on your Facebook status....that's what you get with a jury of peers.

        If you want robots deciding your fate, I wouldn't recommend breaking the law.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The potential issue is that a juror may have been showboating (i.e., not being impartial).

        The summary says this was done *after* the trial.

        In that case, wouldn't you kind of, I don't know, expect the juror to not be impartial anymore. You know, having arrived at a decision and all.

      • by conureman (748753)

        This kind of Karma-whoring is one reason why 12 unanimous jurors should be required. With today's brilliant peers, maybe 15 would stand a better chance of having at least one rational vote.

    • by Narpak (961733) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:43PM (#27218369)
      I guess it is high time proper behaviour in the digital landscape become a serious, and mandatory, course at all elementary and high schools. And perhaps send someone around to politicians, judges, teachers, and generally everyone above the age of twenty who do not know not to post stupid shit online.

      "So, Johnathan, what did you do today?' Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money!" and "Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo, and they'll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter. http://www.stoam.com/ [stoam.com] [stoam.com]."

      Those comments pretty much makes it look like this guy should never have been a juror in the first place.

      • Seems to me that a contempt-of-court charge and a bill for the costs of the new trial (including the parties' legal bills, of course) for Mr. Powell ought to be plenty of schooling for all of us.

        Play with fire, get burnt.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by Hognoxious (631665)
      But ... but ... the defendant is a corporation, just like micro$oft, and IBM. They probably employ like managers and people with MBAs and stuff! So doesn't that mean that by the slashdot system of logic, the juror deserves a medal?
    • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday March 16, 2009 @07:01PM (#27218609)

      Are those really his posts? If so, then there's clearly grounds for a mistrial.

      Disclaimer: My legal training is from /. plus Law and Order.

    • Juror needs to be arrested on contempt charges, and the trial needs to be a mistrial. What an idiot.

    • Any jury I've ever been asked to serve on...the judge makes one thing clear. DO NOT DISCUSS this with anyone. I would think if he did post something on twitter, he violated the rules handed down by the judge. I don't buy the "I posted but didn't read any responses" argument. That's like someone saying I smoked pot but didn't inhale.
    • "Sequestered" means you don't read about the case AND you don't TALK about the case. Period.

      What a loser.

    • by Fulminata (999320)
      As has been noted elsewhere, jurors are free to say whatever they like after a trial is over. The only issue here is whether or not he made those comments during the trial or after it.

      If made before a decision was reached, then the defense may have a case, otherwise they don't.

      This is really just a case of the defense grasping at straws. Once the judge sees exactly when the posts were made this should be over.
  • If he got feedback, that's obviously wrong, it would seem. But let's suppose it can be proven he didn't discuss, only post, i.e. he's sending out information, not receiving it. Then couldn't it be treated as if he was jotting down notes, or writing in a journal? IANAL, but I think there are regulations for when / if you are allowed to journal / take notes. He could just be trying to clear his thoughts by writing them down.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I don't think this is analgous to taking notes in a journal, so much as taking notes on the 3rd floor mens' room stall door.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Odin's Raven (145278)

        I don't think this is analgous to taking notes in a journal, so much as taking notes on the 3rd floor mens' room stall door.

        And let me tell ya, you definitely can't believe everything written on the 3rd floor mens' room stall door. (Oh, and Carl - if you still read /., I'm like so sorry about ...well... you know. I just kinda got the impression you were totally into it.)

    • by rm999 (775449) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:34PM (#27218251)

      The lawyers of the defendant are claiming that he was showboating his power, something that's impossible to do with a pad of paper.

    • by Chyeld (713439) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .dleyhc.> on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:39PM (#27218321)

      If he didn't post anything prior to the verdict, it's a tempest in a teapot. Jurors can say whatever the eff they want once they are out of the courtroom. How many times have big news shows had interviews with jurors that have started along the lines of "And how far into the the trial did you decide that the defendant needed to fry?" In that he's lucky he's in the US, as he's still get his ass handed to him in other countries.

      If he posted anything during the trial proper, then I imagine it's not going to matter whether he got feedback or not. He's going to get his ass handed to him. The judge isn't going to care about the technicalities, it'll be pure contempt of court.

      • "And how far into the the trial did you decide that the defendant needed to fry?"

        The only proper answer to that is, "Once I was in the jury room, deliberating." The jury is not supposed to make up their mind completely until the trial is over, no matter how damning the evidence appears, because you never know what's going to be revealed, or what arguments are going to be made during closing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hognoxious (631665)
      If what you mean is that he could have decided that verdict X might make a good book deal, and secretly committed himself to giving verdict X, but didn't say anything until afterwards than I agree 100%.
    • by techno-vampire (666512) on Monday March 16, 2009 @10:06PM (#27220515) Homepage
      I think there are regulations for when / if you are allowed to journal / take notes.

      There are. You're given a notebook (and extras, if you need them) to take all the notes you want/need. Every juror sits in the same seat, every day, and those notebooks never leave the courtroom until the jury goes to deliberate, at which time the jury takes their notes with them. Those are the only notes you're supposed to take.

      IANAL, but I have been a juror.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by PopeGumby (1125507)
        I swear to god, if IANALBIHBAJ becomes a new internet slang, it will be the greatest day ever.
  • Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:38PM (#27218307)

    Powell says he only posted messages and did not read any replies.

    Sounds like your average day on slashdot.

  • Guh. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Monkey Angst (577685) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:38PM (#27218309) Homepage
    What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand? Did he think his Twitter followers didn't count?

    God, it really seems that as we've adopted more and more ways to communicate, we've completely forgotten how to do it properly, and etiquette hasn't kept pace. When I was a kid we had corded phones. No real chance of taking one into the bathroom with you, so there never needed to be a rule against talking on the phone while taking a crap. But if you asked anyone whether it would be acceptable were it technologically possible, they'd probably have reacted with disgust. But today? I see and hear people on their phones in the restroom all the damn time.

    So maybe it's the judge's fault for not realizing what mouth-breathers people can be, and explicitly forbidding tweeting, blogging, etc? I dunno.

    • But today? I see and hear people on their phones in the restroom all the damn time.

      See?

      Umm, I'm not sure I should take etiquette lessons from you :)

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        But today? I see and hear people on their phones in the restroom all the damn time.

        See?

        Umm, I'm not sure I should take etiquette lessons from you :)

        You mean you've never gone to the men's room, only to find an upper level executive with one hand on the urinal, the other with the cellphone against his ear while he.... .... wait just a second here. There's only ONE type of person who would never SEE someone in a restroom while in use....

        A WOMAN!!! OMG I FOUND A REAL FEMALE ON /.!!!!

        But, ya, it's kind of gross.

      • I'm a male. We frequently see other people in the restroom, since we don't always have to use the stalls. Sometimes we use urinals. Oh, and as for his assertion that he only tweeted after the verdict, you're all correct, I did overlook that part. My bad.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      What part of "He insists he didn't say anything until after the verdict" don't you understand?

      And this is explicitly mentioned in the summary, you don't even have to RTFA to see it. Do you just read the first line of all your email before you respond.

      Now who is the idiot?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        What part of "He insists he didn't say anything until after the verdict" don't you understand?

        And this is explicitly mentioned in the summary, you don't even have to RTFA to see it.

        Let's see:

        Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given;

        Someone doing something wrong and claiming they didn't... THAT"s new ;)

        Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary] /said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered. Seems to me that the question is not whether or not he did it (in spite of his denials), but how relevant the posts actually were .

        Now who is the idiot?

        Heh.

        • by illegalcortex (1007791) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:15AM (#27221371)

          Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary] /said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered. Seems to me that the question is not whether or not he did it (in spite of his denials), but how relevant the posts actually were .

          How do you figure this? I read both articles and dug back to his twitter stream. Maybe you're confused because the ars article gives times in a different timezone than his twitter stream. Though it took me all of ten seconds to figure out and verify that.

          Nothing I can find says he made any posts like what you are implying. There's one post between him being selected and after the verdict. It's about french fries. I fail to see the evidence you seem to be trying to make people believe is there to bolster your case. Just admit the OP was probably wrong and move on.

          • Unfortunately I can't get to twitter during the day to confirm what you said, but I've no reason to doubt that it's true .

            All I said was that he did post during hours of trial, which you confirmed. I didn't say anything else except that the question is now whether the post(s) are relevant. (As you saw, probably not...)

            My dispute with the GGP's comment was that he called previous poster an idiot for implying that the guy 'tweeted' during the trial itself - when the fact is he /did/ do so.

            • Nice backtrack, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it.

              Your post was heavily putting across the "well, of COURSE he claims to be innocent, but why should we believe what he says?" tone. The simple fact, as I pointed out, is that this has nothing to do with what he claims. If you could have waited until you got home to pipe up, you could have verified this yourself. It has do with information he does not control, that plainly shows that he did not tweet about the trial until after the verdict

    • What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand?

      From the fucking summary: Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given;

      What part of that don't YOU understand?

      • by socsoc (1116769)
        You are believing the TFS?! Try reading the articles. Ars shows that he was tweeting during breaks. Pertinent or not, discussing an ongoing case while a juror is a big fuck-up
        • Ars shows no such thing. I did RTFAs and the tweet stream. From the period between being selected as a juror to his tweet AFTER the verdict was given, he made one tweet during a break. Singular. Not "tweets." Not "breaks." Here is that tweet, in it's entirety:

          And the verdict is...Penguin Eds can not make fries

          Damning evidence, indeed.

          • Also, juror law states that one must not communicate _about the case_ until its over (with the obvious exception of other jurors).

            That also means that all other communication is free to be talked about. The only restriction is there to guarantee the right of a fair and impartial trial.

        • You are believing the TFS?! Try reading the articles. Ars shows that he was tweeting during breaks. Pertinent or not, discussing an ongoing case while a juror is a big fuck-up

          Pertinent or not? Did his tweets pertain to the ongoing case, you twit?

    • So maybe it's the judge's fault for not realizing what mouth-breathers people can be, and explicitly forbidding tweeting, blogging, etc? I dunno.

      The judge doesn't ever say whatever he or she wants during the instructions to the jury. All of them are standardized, and the judge just reads them out. In fact, during the case, the lawyers will be making requests to the judge that certain specified instructions be read, and unless the request's unreasonable or inappropriate, it will almost always be granted

  • Spectacular (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 3vi1 (544505)

    >> rather that he might have felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict

    A verdict so spectacular that 11 other people came to the same conclusion without using twitter?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Xtravar (725372)

      So... they're arguing that the only 'competent' juror who may have fallen on their side had he not been showboating... is a Twitter user.

      Interesting strategy.

    • Re:Spectacular (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slashqwerty (1099091) on Monday March 16, 2009 @07:40PM (#27219015)

      rather that he might have felt a need to agree to a spectacular verdict

      A verdict so spectacular that 11 other people came to the same conclusion without using twitter?

      The defendant is entitled to a unanimous verdict from twelve impartial jurors, not eleven. Even if you let that requirement slide there is still the possibility that the twelfth juror unduly influenced his colleagues so he would be able to publish some spectacular posts.

  • Sorry, did I miss the memo where "tweet" as something other than the sound a bird makes entered mainstream language? Ahhh, the last usage listed on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: A micro-blog [wikipedia.org] post on the Twitter social network site. So in other words, it's another way of saying "message posting"? As in, Jurors posting about unfinished trial could cause mistrial?
  • The fact that politicians and media elite now use twitter doesn't make it good. It makes it even more annoying.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by owlnation (858981)

      The fact that politicians and media elite now use twitter doesn't make it good. It makes it even more annoying.

      It does make it more annoying in the short term. The really good news is that it's also the sign of the beginning of the end of the fad. Vacuous sites like Twitter are flash-in-the-pan. There's no real substance, nor purpose, nor income. The only reason people use them is peer pressure and fashion.

      The one sure-fire way of making something deeply uncool is to let a politician use it. Thus, hope

    • The fact that politicians and media elite now use twitter doesn't make it good. It makes it even more annoying.

      I hate to be paraphrasing Garry Trudeau (one of his characters anyway); but I do think Twitter is basically just a giant time suck that everyone who has any semblance of a life will quickly get over in the near future.

      As more and more of the sheer idiocy and/or inanity being posted by your average tweeter comes to light, normal people will start to move on.

  • It depends (Score:4, Insightful)

    by davmoo (63521) on Monday March 16, 2009 @07:17PM (#27218755)

    IANAL yadda yadda yadda, but I've served on 6 juries to date. And an instruction that was emphasized repeatedly by the judges in every case was "do not talk about the case outside of the jury room until the case is over". (Note: At least in my part of Indiana, jurors are allowed to discuss the case *amongst themselves* during all phases of the trial (except, obviously, when court is in active session), provided they do not attempt to come to a verdict before the official deliberation phase of the trial, and *all* members of the jury must be at least listening to any discussion, even if not actively participating.)

    If this guy twittered after the trial was over and the verdict had been delivered, then I see no problems. But if he was broadcasting before the verdict was handed down by the judge, then I think there are indeed grounds for a mistrial...and Mr. Bigmouth Juror should get a few days in jail himself to think about his actions.

    And were you on the losing side, I'd be willing to bet each and every one of you would be fighting for a mistrial on the same grounds.

    • by Todd Knarr (15451)

      That's the nice thing here: there's no need to wonder, no need for conjecture, just compare the timestamps on his posts to the time the verdict was delivered based on the court record.

      And if the timestamps show the entries were after the verdict was handed down, I think Stoam Holdings' attorneys should get hit with Rule 11 sanctions as an object lesson.

    • Also as an Indiana citizen who has served in one criminal case, I will concur. That wording is precisely what they say, and stress.

      However, the only one rule that was misleading was that "Jurors may discuss at any part of the trial amongst yourselves when not in open court" . Ok, fine. We all did. Then it came to the last talk, after closing statements: "The alternate juror must not be involved in these last talks"? WTF? She was talking just as much before, but not now?

  • by johnpaul191 (240105) on Monday March 16, 2009 @07:44PM (#27219089) Homepage
    This trial has been going on for a while in PA. The Twitter/Facebook story hit on Sunday, but today (Monday) he was found guilty on 137 counts and they did not replace that juror. I am guessing that will be among the things his lawyers put in his appeal? Something about it being unfair. 137 counts of corruption and i bet they cray about something posted on facebook. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6711443 [go.com]
  • http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/03/fumo_jurors_online_discussion.html [pennlive.com]

    In PA. Big time corruption trial of a state legislator.

    The motion should have been resolved by now, but I'm not sure what happened. The verdict (guilty) came down today. If the juror wasn't removed, it's very possible that an appeal could argue this very issue. Fumo's attorney has already said he is going to appeal.

  • Surely if you comment (in public) or discuss (in public or private, except with other jurors) about a trial for which you are a juror, that is contempt of court? Well, in the UK, not sure if you have the same concept in the US.
  • "Did not read any replies"

    He's guilty.
    Observe: I post comments on my blog.
    I do not read replies.
    My web traffic goes up after each comment, some influencing it more than others.
    The prosecution insinuating bias doesn't have to prove that I read a single comment. If the traffic to my blog was affected by what I posted (impossible to disprove, or even to question!) then the nature of what I post is NOT UNBIASED.

    Thank you, thank you. Use this wherever you see fit, the comments are public domain.
  • Jesus H. Christ..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IHC Navistar (967161) on Monday March 16, 2009 @11:06PM (#27220967)

    How can people be so fucking stupid?!

    What on Earth could make somebody flagrantly disregard instructions and risk jail time just so they could blog on Twitter to all their friends? Why not wait until AFTER the trial? So you were a juror sitting on a trial..... WHO THE FUCK CARES?! WE'VE ALL DONE BEEN THERE!

    The judge ought to have beat the idiot to death with his gavel. It would have been a good example of 'Public Service'.

  • Jurors always have unknown emotional motives. To suggest that a verdict be altered due to unreasonable motives by a juror is childish. How many unknown emotional motives exist in maintaining the entire civil and criminal justice systems?

  • If he violated judges instructions about discussing the case. I wonder if the parties involved could sue the jurors for the cost of a retrial.

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...