'Twittering' threat to US trials

[T_i_B]

Source: BBC

The verdicts in two US trials are being appealed against because jurors made comments about them on social networking sites.

Defence lawyers in the two cases say postings by jurors on sites like Twitter and Facebook could be grounds for appeal.

Jurors are forbidden to discuss anything relating to a case outside the deliberation room.

Some legal experts say that the courts system is not designed to work in the "wired" world, others argue that online commentary should be treated no differently from things that are said in person.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7948845.stm

[hobbit709]

1. We don't need any more twits on juries.

[DRoseDARs]

2. Oh what a crock of horseshit. Trials have been threatened since the invention of the grunt.

Jesus Nuns-of-Perpetual-Indulgence Christ, get a fucking grip "some legal experts." Judges have this thing called "legal authority" to order jurors to keep details of a trial secret. They also have authority to punish those who fail to obey those orders, regardless of how they violate those orders. The will to communicate hasn't changed in 100,000 years, only the method. Why "Twittering" is being viewed as different from any other violation of orders to keep court proceedings secret is beyond me.

[happyslug]

15. Actually Judges do NOT have the ability to "punish" Juror, except to remove them

That has been the rule in the English Common Law Countries ever since the Jury that tried William Penn (later founder of Pennsylvania) of being a "Traitor" for being a Quaker (Official Name: Society of Friends) refused to Convict him. Upon the Acquittal the Judge Jailed the Jury till they would rule Penn Guilty for technically he was for being a Quaker in the late 1600s England was Treason. The Jury sat in Jail for two weeks till one of the Jurors bribed a Guard and had his lawyer file a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was granted and the Jury let out. Ever since what the Jury does is NOT subject to review by the Judge. If a Juror wants to knit (or anything else), the only thing the Judge can do is remove that Juror, the Judge can NOT punish the Juror.

As to communication, I have to agree, we Humans have been doing it for at least 100,000 years (Since the onset of Homo Sapiens, through some researchers think some primitive communications occurred among earlier Homo Species, through the General Consensus is speech is a Home Sapien exclusive characteristics). Thus this is a non-issue, yes, Court have told Jurors NOT to talk about cases, but they have and always will. Just because we can PROVE such talking took place in this case does NOT show that the Jury used any information that was NOT public Knowledge OR presented to them at Trial. That is the key, and unless there is something in the Twitter comments that shows something else the Defendant will lose on appeal.

[mwb970]

3. It should become routine to jam cell phones in certain settings.

Courtrooms, crowded train cars, libraries, schools - why not set up jamming stations that would prevent cell phones from working in these restricted places? Or is the Right To Gab and Text guaranteed in the Constitution somewhere?

We got along with no cell phones at all for many, many years. Why must we allow their unfettered use everywhere at any time now, just because they exist?

[Kolesar]

5. They could shield the building to block electromagnetic emissions

Like is done with the CIA building and some of our embassies.

[Bake]

12. Many courts bar cell phones entirely.

In some (if not all) federal courthouses, you have to leave them at the door.

Bake

[Catch22Dem]

4. Why are Twitter and Facebook being singled out here?

How is this any different than simply TALKING about the trial? It's the same thing if you ask me, just a different means of breaking the order the judge gives us ALL when we sit on a jury.

[mainer]

6. The difference is that there's a record left behind

and the juror's opinion is forever available as evidence. Why can't they just require jurors to turn off their cell phones? I can't think of anything more disruptive than a dozen cell phones going off at various times.

[soothsayer]

8. they might do it afterwards, from home

[madmom]

11. When I sat on a jury, we got breaks and were allowed to go to the cafeteria, I

was there once and some one behind me started talking to me, I turned around and it was a lawyer, he then said "excuse me, I'm sorry" then pointed to a little lapel pin I was wearing that said "juror" on it. He knew, so did I. These people have to have it beaten into their heads what this means!

[Catch22Dem]

16. I've been on 4 juries...cell phones were taken at the door to the court HOUSE

Not the court ROOM but the entire building. I don't think phones during a trial are an issue anywhere. Not that I've heard about anyway.

[Posteritatis]

13. Because they're well known and it feels good to freak out about them

As DU's proven in spades lately.

Also, people seem convinced that anything done online is somehow metaphysically different than doing the exact same thing offline. It's just the latest instance of that bullshit practice of making up a bunch of new crimes/actions/etc by prefixing existing ones with the word "cyber."

[Auggie]

7. Why can't people just follow the rules?

[Vinca]

9. This is an easy remedy: confiscate all hand-held communication

devices as the jurors enter the courthouse.

[Retrograde]

14. there are already rules against communication by jurors

If I am a juror, I am not allowed to discuss or comment on a trial without the judge's permission, which is usually after the verdict. As far as I know, I can not only not talk about it, I can't write a letter to my mother about it, or put up a sign stating my opinion, or send a semaphore, or go down to the local park and do an interpretive dance about it. Using a cell phone or twitter account or my blog to disseminate information is exactly the same as carving the details of the deliberations in stone on a cave wall, except quicker. It's already illegal, and people who violate this law should be prosecuted the same as if they had spoken to a reporter during the trial.

[jody]

10. Now that's really jury nullification. n/t