Juror Didn't Disclose MySpace Friendship With Defendant... Because It Was Just MySpace
from the talk-about-damning-myspace dept
Here's a fun one. An appeals court in West Virginia has granted a new trial to a defendant because one of the jurors failed to disclose that she was a "friend" on MySpace with the defendant and had sent him a message during the trial. The message itself was mostly meaningless ("I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life..." etc. and even mentioned "Hey, I don't know you very well"), but the juror never bothered to mention that she knew the defendant at all, let alone well enough to be a MySpace connection. When asked why, she answered:I knew in my heart that I didn't know him . . . I should have at least said that . . . he was on MySpace, which really [wasn't] important, I didn't think.Ouch for MySpace. Either way, a new trial has been ordered, and yet again questions revolving around social media in the courtroom need to be tackled in court.
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: disclosure, friendship, jurors, social networking
Companies: myspace
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perspective
It absolutely does not establish a prior relationship at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perspective
For instance, attorneys that belong to the same social clubs don't disqualify themselves in cases, and jurors aren't disqualified because they 'know' a celebrity or someone whose arrest and/or alleged crime was well publicized.
Last, what do you think they do in smaller areas? Ship people in from the next county? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perspective
We are talking about jurors not Attorneys, they and judges pretty much all know each other.
"Ship people to another county?"
Yes, it's called change of venue in the event the defendant believes there are to many people that know him in a given area and would not be given a fair trail given his/her rep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perspective
But not because you know them. That's just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perspective
Having enough knowledge of someone that you can reach out and talk to them like this juror did absolutely requires disclosure. The attorneys might ignore the relationship if they feel it's insignificant enough, but that's up to the attorneys, ya know, those that know the law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Perspective
Merely being myspace "friends", on the other hand, would not be very relevant.
The one thing we know for sure though- it wasn't her place to decide what was relevant and what wasn't. She should have revealed the relationship, however minor it was, and then let the court decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
It's actually possible that during selection had she mentioned this that she would still have been selected. But the fact that she did not disclose this did not give them attorneys a chance to investigate the "relationship" further.
little mikee m NEVER takes the time to actually mention any details that are relevant to the situation, only mentions what furthers his little agenda. little mikee m really needs to take a few courses in journalism and writing before he goes on his little rant about "saving journalism" his type of journalism really needs to be extinguished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
Michial Thompson, keepin it classy as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
Mike said "but the juror never bothered to mention that she knew the defendant at all"
Did you bother to RTFA before you posted?
"little mikee m NEVER takes the time to actually mention any details that are relevant to the situation, only mentions what furthers his little agenda. little mikee m really needs to take a few courses in journalism and writing before he goes on his little rant about "saving journalism" his type of journalism really needs to be extinguished."
Do you realize how retarded you sound? I can't believe you posted with your real name. If your goal was to make yourself sound intelligent, you failed... badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
To pile onto the response to your puerile rant...
Mike Masnick isn't a journalist nor does he claim to be, so your comment is irrelevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
Seriously, if the post said "Mayor of Wisconsin was seen while walking into a grocery store" you'll scream "agenda!". And even if you don't, we all know you'll manage to say "lil' mikee m" at least twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
"Blah, blah, little mikee m blah. Yada yada yada [completely baseless assertion] little mikee m, and ickety ackety oop [unrelenting bitterness]."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not entirely clear (in the linked article) whether she was asked a direct question regarding any relationship with the defendant, isn't this standard court procedure?
One would think that she should have made it known and then it would be up to the court to decide if she should sit on the jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know Jane Doe!
If not for the corrispondence she might have had a leg to stand on. I agree, I have friended people on Facebook and myspace because we share some similar interest (some of which is an online MUD but thats not important). I don't talk to them person to person. we might share posts in an online forum but I don't know them. Once I send them a personal message (more than one in this case wishing them the blessing of god and so on) that leads me to believe she was more than just a random person she had similar interests with. She was incorrect in her opinnion of weather or not it was important. Sorry, I would tell the court "yeah I have them as a friend on my list in facebook but I have never talked with them on a personal level" and then let the court deside if it means you are disqualified or not. It isn't your opinion that matters but the court's. The information should have been disclosed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non Sequitur
Pretty much sums up my view of things. Where I've "known" lots of people online in various online forums, and try to treat them respectfully, I barely consider any of those relationships "real" unless I've met them in person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non Sequitur
She probably should have resisted the temptation to contact him for the duration of the trial. And then she could have an argument ... "Oh was I linked to him in some less-than-meaningful way through a social media site. Well, that isn't saying much ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
West Virginia Juror Instructions:
http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/juryinfo/juryhdbk.htm
Talking With Parties or Lawyers: Jurors should not talk with any of the parties, witnesses or lawyers during the trial. It may give the appearance that something unfair is happening.
DUH!!!!!!!!!!
From a West Virginia County
Jurors get instructions.
In almost all Virginia jury trials, however, the jury goes home at the end of each day and is simply told not to discuss the case with anyone nor to watch, read, or listen to news reports about the case. It is essential that you follow these instructions.
During the trial my husband served on he didn't even tell me what the case was about! Why? Because of JURY INSTRUCTIONS not to discuss the case with anyone let alone sending the defendant ANY sort of message! It was during the holidays and took a one week break for Christmas, His mood was SOMBER. It wasn't til I heard the verdict announced on the news and my husband came home that he told me that was the trial he was serving on.
Contacting the DEFENDANT in ANY way is a NO NO no matter how you look at it, MySpace or not! I can't believe anyone commenting here would say "poor juror". No, STUPID juror for going against jury instructions jeopardizing the case and costing the tax-payers money for a new trial!
Here read the document. They weren't friends on MySpace UNTIL she sent him a message!
http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/Spring10/35273.pdf
Hey, I dont know you very well But I think you could use some advice! I havent been in your shoes for a long time but I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life. You might not understand why you are hurting right now but when you look back on it, it will make perfect sence. I know it is hard but just remember that God is perfect and has the most perfect plan for your life. Talk soon!5
The jury CONVICTED him and then the guy gets a new trial because she's such a DUFUS she's sending him advice?!!!
Ye Gads!
5Juror Hyre told investigators that she wrote the message because she heard Appellant was going through a divorce and wanted to provide him with some advice. However, according to Appellant, he had been divorced for more than two years.
Ye GADS!
For his part, Appellant avers that he did not then recognize Juror Hyre to be the same “Amber” who wrote to him on MySpace. Apparently, “Amber” from MySpace did not include her last name and, according to Appellant, Juror Hyre looked very different from her photograph posted on the website. As indicated above, Appellant alerted the trial court to Juror Hyre’s MySpace message just following the verdict, having first learned that Juror Hyre and “Amber” were the same person only a short time earlier.6
Ye GADS!
“Mrs. Hyre was questioned about her friendship with Mr. Dellinger and she stated that she knew him and had spoke to him only to say ‘hi’ in passing and that they used to live in the same apartment complex together.” It is undisputed that, during voir dire, Juror Hyre never indicated to the trial court that she knew Appellant; had ever spoken to him “in passing”; or that they used to live in the same apartment complex.7
YE GADS!!!! Sorry guys, but she didn't fess up to ever "knowing" him in any way during jury selection either. A NO NO!
Does anyone here still feel sorry for this DUFUS who didn't do a single thing right as a juror?
Sure hope not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really? It's one thing to not know them very well (a friend of a friend, etc), but why are you accepting friend requests from people you don't know AT ALL? Just trying to up your friend count? Sad.
And if that were the case here, maybe I'd agree that, on a legal level, a MySpace friend really counts as a prior relationship... but the fact that SHE EMAILED HIM DURING THE TRIAL automatically should have the case thrown out. It's all kinds of improper for a juror and defendant to have ANY contact during a trial!!
And her message would have spooked me and seems to infer she's made up her mind already... "god has a plan for you."
Actually, it sounds like she's a Cylon to me. And I don't want no frakkin' skin job sitting on MY jury!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have come to visit you in peace and with goodwill!
Cylons may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Cylons have seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Cylons are Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With.
Cylons have shiny metal posteriors which should not be bitten.
And they have a plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that plenty of people play social games, and they friend lots of people that they will never meet, and never be friends with because it's beneficial to the game.
I'm not saying that her lack of disclosure is okay; I'm just saying that it's perfectly normal to have lots of 'friends' that aren't your friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury's first question from lawers
2-Do you have the accused as a friend?
3-Do you agree to have us search your contacts and friends?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I doubt there has been a significant increase of stupid lately ... but now that communication tools are abundant, there has been an large increase in communicating stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha, a way out of jury duty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]