Juror Tweets Could Create Mistrial 148
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."
Is that a Canary? (Score:2, Funny)
C'mon, the irony was practically slapping you in the face Stooge style...
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is that a Canary? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that movie is good due to some of the historical perspective within it. I don't think it would pull a good remake.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually,Russia filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov has just released a remake. [nytimes.com]
Like the original, the story is about the personalities in the room, with the Russina take centering how the men are a cross section of Soviet/Post-Soviet society.
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay to watch that. A modernized version of "Twelve Angry Men" (and I don't mean that episode of Monk) might not be a bad thing, if pulled off right.
No, let's not. You know that the year after that they'll release "Thirteen Angry Men" with George Clooney and Steve Martin.
Tweet? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I prefer using the preexisting terminology for Twitter users, "twit".
I think you mean "silly twat".
Re:Tweet? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From his tone, I imagine he'll call it Bait. messaging will be call baiting, and thus he'll be the master baiter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call it "coccyx".
What? I meant that it's from the base of the spine.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of words to say that their success is accidental.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Time's a tickin' (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've made many websites, far more complex than that pile of trash. Feel free to look at the one in my sig.
Re:Tweet? (Score:5, Funny)
I've made many websites, far more complex than that pile of trash. Feel free to look at the one in my sig. -- Free Canadian Online Dating [dreamsingles.ca]
You should've called it twatter.
Re:Tweet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've made many websites, far more complex than that pile of trash. Feel free to look at the one in my sig.
And they scale effectively up to millions of users while maintaining 98.7% uptime or better?
I agree twitter is baffling in its popularity, and probably overvalued - but in my own experience when someone says "I can code X in 20 minutes" it usually indicates a serious lack of understanding of the requirements ;) *
* "Hello World" excepted from this.
Re: (Score:2)
With the correct tools scaling to 20 million users is trivial as is 99.5% up time. And.5% downtime (1.8 days a year) is considered crap in most projects as it's almost a fucking hour a week. Twitter is a bad joke that no competent person want's anything to do with building.
PS: I have worked on a project with a combined downtime over 10 years of less than 5 hours including scheduled downtime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With "the correct tools," flying my harem to the moon and back without incident is trivial.
Where I work, 0.5% uptime would get you a "promoted" to a window office, complete with an endless stream of paper files for you to sort. Strike that -- it'd get you fired.
As for 20 million users, you'll want to have better a better notion about scaling than "trivial," unless you're serving a static HTML page via Akamai, with the text "Hello, world."
10 million uniques, tens of millions of database-driven pageviews per
Re: (Score:2)
When your database consists of a users table and a posts table, yeah, scaling isn't hard.
Re: (Score:2)
when someone says "I can code X in 20 minutes" it usually indicates a serious lack of understanding of the requirements ;) *
* "Hello World" excepted from this.
You'd be surprised how often it's not. For example, very few people, when asked to write "Hello World" in compliant, portable ISO C++ actually do it correctly straight away (especially if they don't try to compile it - but even if they do, and it compiles on their implementation, there usually are some issues remaining). E.g. this version is incorrect:
(finding the mistakes is left as an exercise for the rea
Re: (Score:2)
I tried, but it was down.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds like your beating us up because you just realized that the universe does not revolve around you.
Life sucks sometimes, especially when the appearance of less skill makes more money. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how much skill you have unless you can market it effectively.
It's the Juror's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's the Juror's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's the Juror's Fault (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:It's the Juror's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Contempt and mistrial (Score:1)
Juror needs to be arrested on contempt charges, and the trial needs to be a mistrial. What an idiot.
punish him (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't twits/tweets/whatever-the-hell timestamped? How is this still an issue?
What part of "sequestered" didn't he understand? (Score:2)
"Sequestered" means you don't read about the case AND you don't TALK about the case. Period.
What a loser.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jury duty is part of the price for having a free society (theory). It's about being an adult and taking responsibility for trying to live in the kind of society the US is (or was depending how cynical you are) trying to be. Sure, the reality is it sucks and feels like a huge waste of time but if your only motivator for doing something you don't want is money then chances are you're A) bad with relationships and B) going to lose some rights you'd really rather not.
I find myself saying this more and more, t
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
(In America) Jury duty is a condition of being a registered voted (Free as in freedom, not beer) and jurors are paid, albeit a very small amount. Jury duty is not slavery.
They pay something like $5-10 a day. It doesn't even pay for parking at the fucking courthouse.
It's like notetaking? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.)
Re:It's like notetaking? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers of the defendant are claiming that he was showboating his power, something that's impossible to do with a pad of paper.
Re: (Score:1)
You are obviously used to small paper. Allow me be the first to recommend big paper (now in even bigger sizes).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's like notetaking? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:It's like notetaking? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Powell says he only posted messages and did not read any replies.
Sounds like your average day on slashdot.
Guh. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
See?
Umm, I'm not sure I should take etiquette lessons from you :)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I did RTFAs. It doesn't say what you say it says. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
>> 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)
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)
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.
Tweet, as in the sound a bird makes? (Score:1)
Anyone else annoyed by the twitter fad? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
almost happened in PA Senator corruption trial (Score:4, Informative)
another case (Score:2)
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.
Contempt of court? (Score:1)
Only posted (Score:2)
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)
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 (Score:2)
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?
juror faces fines and jail time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then its 110% fine.
Unless they indicate that he wasn't acting impartially, in which case it's 110% not.
Re: (Score:2)
What about prior knowledge that a juror has that wasnt explicitly asked?
We had a court case here in Indiana. It was a DUI case, but which I was able to ask the judge about the blood test that happened 3 hours after the fact.
IN law states that you can do regression to determine the BAL of a subject in incarcerated. So, if Arrest_BAL=? , 3_Hours_later=X, we assume that Arrest_BAL=X+regression.
I challenged that conception by a well worded question and was able to get the jury to completely disregard all such t
Re: (Score:2)
Were the jurors sequestered eight days a week, as well?