Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
from the wow dept
So we've had plenty of stories about modern technology moving into the courtroom, but the issue is usually over jury members using Twitter, using Google or using Facebook. And there was the one case that involved witnesses text messaging each other from the stand. In all of these stories, the end result is the judge getting pissed off about the fact that the tech had been brought into the courtroom. However, this latest story is really quite incredible. Apparently a judge "friended" on Facebook one of the lawyers in an ongoing case (via Michael Scott). On top of that, the judge was found to have Googled information about the defendant, and even visited the defendant's own website -- which the judge admitted influenced how he felt about the defendant. The judge later disqualified himself from the case and has now been reprimanded for these actions. Still, while I can understand a jury member doing some of these things, you would think a lawyer would know better.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: courtroom, courts, social networking, technology
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, but...
So a lawyer was not truly representing the facts in a case, a judge, whose job it is to discern the truth, had to go around the standard judicial proceedings to find the truth of the matter. Sounds like he was trying to do his job. He could still have used the web to research the situation and influence his decision without getting "personally" involved.
That said, he was out of line for friending only one of the lawyers. If both lawyers were not on fb then he should not have friended either. I've always thought the term "friend" was overused on any social site. I have a lot more acquaintances and people I barely knew in high school than actual friends on fb, but they are all called friends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We have too much separation between a trial and the person. A judge getting to know the person he is trying is much more likely to be able to make a more accurate ruling than based purely on two very dramatic and inaccurate sides spouting off their stories. It can go either way, a judge may learn about the person and decided that he sides with him, that he is actually a good person, and lessen the punishment. Likewise, he might learn that he is a horrible person, repeat offender, and lock him away.
The law is becoming far too black and white, right and wrong. Morality can be purely right or wrong, but the law will always have some gray areas that need deeper understanding. We have progressively headed to more black and white criminal/civil punishments over the years and it's causing all kinds of problems with our legal system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I agree with you this kind of thing could go in any direction, like say: The judge could get duped by a stupid poem the guy copied onto his website to impress his girlfriend, and decide that he is a good guy, so screw the facts!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
however
Our system expects the judge and the jury to get their information about a case IN THE COURTROOM. The reason is that whatever is obtained outside of that venue is not controlled for veracity, accuracy or bias. The opposing side has no information on what is being accessed, thus no opportunity to refute that information or present a balancing picture.
The courtroom is a controlled environment where ALL the evidence can be presented under controlled conditions and preserved in the case of an appeal. If the judge gets half of his information from the plaintiff's website, how can the defendant present that information to an appeals court if the plaintiff then kills the site before the appeal can be heard? Both sides in the courtroom can present their evidence in the same way, under the same circumstances, eliminating the chances of conditional bias introduced by a different venue.
The rules are there because of centuries of experience in eliminating bias and making justice as impartial as possible.
Operate outside of those rules, and justice suffers fast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Da Judge
As for a judge doing the things described. It sounds like a case for removing him from office. He has simply crossed the line by getting involved in such as way.
Justice impartial? The law has nothing to do with justice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yes but
I don't know what the standards are where he works for removing judges, but he certainly should be investigated and at the very least, reprimanded.
If people get the idea that the legal system won't treat them at least fairly, the whole point of having one goes down the tubes. Yes, we all know that being able to hire better lawyers (or certainly more of them) get you a better chance to win, but most Americans at least THINK they will be treated fairly.
In bypassing the court rules as he did, this judge jeopardizes that appearance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PSYCHO!
In about 30 minutes, a decent hacker for hire could have a facebook, twitter, blog, myspace and everything else you can think about created to look like they came from you. And if you're paying someone overseas, it'd cost the defense (or prosecution) about $100 to do all that and make you look however they wanted.
Without any checks and balances or verification or authentication of information, that could warp every case sent to court.
You read all the time of fake facebooks and myspace pages for teachers created by bitter (or just obnoxious) students... how would you like one of those brought up as evidence in a murder trial (assuming you didn't do it), where the jury took that as THE TRUTH?!
Much better to work with the system as is, despite it's many and gaping flaws, than to introduce the chaos element of the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Silly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
that's the point
The courtroom is closely controlled to ensure that the venue allows the full and fair examination of all evidence and witnesses, and prevents outside influence from intruding into the process. If necessary, a jury is sequestered to ensure their isolation from contaminating speculation in the press.
Since a judge can hardly be expected to sequester himself, he is trusted, as an officer of the court, to adhere to the rules regarding such outside influence, as are the attorneys trusted to not attempt improper contacts with either judge or jury.
This case illustrates how human nature can be expected to fail in both ways, for judge and attorney, and the only reason we are talking about it here is because of the judge's use of the web in his improper activities.
Whether he used the web for his investigation or a newspaper, his actions were improper and should be treated as such traditionally are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: yes but
VRP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Silly
In the courtroom, "voir dire" (testing evidence) is conducted in the juries' absence. enabling the judge to determine if the information can become evidence, or admissible evidence, and put before the jury. All on the record, in case of appeal or judicial review.
VRP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Judge reprimanded for Friending lawyer
[ link to this | view in thread ]