Juror Has To Write Essay As Punishment For Commenting On Case Via Facebook

from the write-this-100-times-on-the-blackboard dept

Tue, Sep 7th 2010 9:15pm — Mike Masnick

We've written many, many times about how technology is invading the courtroom in ways that courts still aren't entirely prepared to handle. Social networking sites are definitely becoming an issue. There was the juror who Twittered during a trial, and almost led to a retrial. There was the juror who sent a MySpace message to the defendant. But, of course, the social network that pops up all the time with juries is Facebook. There was the case where jurors became Facebook friends with each other, and another where a juror asked her friends on Facebook, whether she should go with guilty/not guilty. In a lot of cases, these users are just using Facebook/Twitter/MySpace the way they normally would -- as an informal way of communication. But that doesn't mean judges have to like it.

In the latest such story, a woman who joked on Facebook that she was "gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY," wasn't just kicked off the jury, but ordered to write a five-page essay on "the constitutional right to a fair trial," and ordered to pay $250.

Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is how this all came to light. Apparently, the 17-year-old son of the lawyer for the defendant found the comment on Facebook, told his father, who brought it to the court's attention. Kids these days...

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: jury, social networks
Companies: facebooks

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

greenbird (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 10:26pm

Focus of the Essay
I'd focus the essay on how out of touch the vast majority of judges are with modern technology and how it's used for social interaction in the modern world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 7 Sep 2010 @ 10:50pm
  
  Re: Focus of the Essay
  *Facepalm*
  
  I'd focus the essay on how out of touch with reality people can be, especially when using Facebook.
  The judge ought to make her write an apology 500 times on her Facebook page as well.
  If I (God forbid) ever end up as a defendant in a jury trial I hope I don't have jurors like this clueless (and perhaps mean)woman.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rob, 8 Sep 2010 @ 2:50am
    
    Re: Re: Focus of the Essay
    I think the judge should have thanked her and sent her on her way for disclosing that she was a useless juror. If she hadn't posted on FB she's have held the same opinions and influenced the jury.
    
    He's just punishing her for doing online what the other jurors were already doing with their spouses and friends.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 7:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Focus of the Essay
      You're right, but I think for the wrong reasons. If I understand correctly, the harm wasn't so much that she Facebooked that she thought the defendant was guilty, (though, that is wrong, too) but that she facebooked it before she heard the defense's arguments.
      
      So, you're right that she did everyone a favor by getting herself ousted, and you're right that many jurors do this and never get punished for it but it wasn't just because she talked about the case but that she made up her mind before weighing all the facts of the case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:02pm

Perhaps the judge should have ordered her to write a chain email apologising.
Perhaps the first genuinely useful one in the history of chain emails, ending with
If you don't pass this on to 5 people in your address book, within 12 hours, I'll be spending a week in prison for contempt of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pontifex (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:30pm
  
  Re:
  But then nobody would pass it on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarah Black (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 2:19am

So the 17-year-old son of the lawyer for the defendant just happened to find the comment on Facebook... or was he searching for "dirt" to dig up on any of the juror's by searching their names on Facebook/Google. "Dirt" for, you know, a mistrial of some sort?

Im sure that by not having a mistrial, this outcome is somewhat better. But by fining the juror and having an essay written, is in my opinion, a bit over the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 8 Sep 2010 @ 4:41am
  
  Re:
  "But by fining the juror and having an essay written, is in my opinion, a bit over the top."
  
  Perhaps a contempt charge would be more in line with established protocol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 8 Sep 2010 @ 5:21am

Wouldn't it be interesting
If the juror came back with a defense of jury nullification for her essay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ian (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 5:25am

A bit misleading...
The issue wasn't that she'd commented on Facebook, so much as the fact that she'd pre-decided the case, which destroys that "presumption of innocence" thing that our judicial system relies on. All Facebook did here was make it easier to find out/prove that she'd pre-decided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: A bit misleading...
  It's both, actually. Jurors are clearly admonished to not discuss the case at all outside of the deliberation room. Not even among themselves in the courthouse hallway during a recess.
  
  Actually, when I served on a jury many years ago, I tried to avoid making a decision early, but what I found was that my opinion was sort of like a meter dial on which the indicator needle would swing back and forth between guilty and not-guilty, depending on the latest evidence/testimony being presented. I was a bit concerned that I might be unfair to the defendant by doing that, but gave it a lot of thought and decided this was "natural", and that the most important part was my preparedness to hear both sides and take all the evidence into account. If my path wavered back and forth before making a final decision, that was OK, as long as the final decision took into account everything.
  
  I also was impressed that my fellow jurors really did seem to take the whole thing very seriously. I didn't always agree with where they were coming from on various issues, and jury deliberation sure demonstrates that different life experiences can color one's perceptions in interesting ways. But, overall, everybody treated the whole thing seriously.
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2010 @ 6:21am

I have been a juror member. You aren't supposed to talk to anyone about what the hell you are deciding upon. I can understand why and I know dumb people won't follow the rules anyways... but we have rules dang gum it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 6:47am

The new Pattern Jury Instructions we use at the federal courthouse here specifically mention not to talk about the case on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Jurors usually giggle when the judge reads that part. I think that's a good thing, but I'm not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2010 @ 7:33am

important detail missing
There's an important detail of this story that you've omitted: the judge wasn't mad because the "gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY," was made on Facebook, but rather because it was made before the defense had the opportunity to present its case.

To the judge, the juror was essentially admitting that they'd made up their mind already and wouldn't listen to the defense, which sounds like contempt of court to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 10:17am
  
  Re: important detail missing
  Yes, that's important, but the timing is not the only issue. Since jurors are not supposed to discuss the case AT ALL outside of the deliberation room, the fact that she posted ANYTHING about it is a problem - regardless of who had or had not had their turn at bat.
  
  Jurors are not supposed to be discusing the case, contacting anybody involved with the case, conducting their own investigation (e.g., visiting the crime scene on their own), talking to the press, etc., etc., etc. After the trial, they can say/do whatever they want, but until they are released, they're supposed to closed off to the world outside that courtroom (as far as the case is concerned).
  
  That's one reason why some juries get sequestered - to make sure there is NO contact with the outside world in particularly sensitive cases.
  
  HM
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capri, 8 Sep 2010 @ 9:22am

This really has nothing to do with Facebook as the main focus. I don't know why people always make like it's such shocking news whenever social networks are even a teeny bit involved. This woman got caught acting like an immature twit about something she had no right to be treating this way, and she could've helped to get someone wrongly convicted. No, she shouldn't write a chain letter as some commentor mentioned above. Writing that essay isn't over the top. If I was the judge, I'd order her banned from jury duty again for at least 10 years. By then she might've grown up a little and had plenty of time to think of how her immaturity could've cost someone else hard time in prison. Who cares if it was discovered on Facebook? What matters here is that she was found out at all. How many others aren't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  If I was the judge, I'd order her banned from jury duty again for at least 10 years.
  
  ...so you want *more* people to do this?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hugh Mann (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  Well, I wouldn't ban anyone from jury service unless there were some other service alternative - like shoveling out the police stables (for those communities that have mounted police, of course) for an equivalent period of time.
  
  That should go for EVERYONE who gets out of jury duty for anything other than a hardship.
  
  HM
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anny1Wiliams (profile), 25 Mar 2021 @ 2:49pm

Any essay should be written with a cool head and a clear mind. You should also always know where to order the best essay. On the service <a href=”https://essaywriter.today/”>essaywriter.today</a>
the best authors will prepare for you in a day your best essay that will conquer your teacher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]