California Wants To Put Jurors In Jail For Tweeting About Trial
from the overkill dept
We've seen a few stories over the years about jurors tweeting or otherwise discussing trials via social media. Obviously, the courts don't like that, as they usually have bans on discussing cases publicly while they're ongoing. However, in a culture of sharing all sorts of things going on in one's life, it's difficult for some people to shut off. And, to be clear, I'm not entirely sure why it's so bad to talk about a case, in general. I can understand specific instances, based on what you're talking about, but an overall ban just seems unreasonable and unworkable. However, as the courts and governments deal with this issue, we're going to see more overreactions like the following.California has now passed a law that will allow it to put people in jail for tweeting about a case as a juror. As that link explains, courts already have broad powers to penalize jurors who disobey court rules, including "improper" conduct or "interfering" with a trial. Thus, as Eric Johnson notes:
The current law seems to cover everything of substance. The only thing the new provision does that I can see is make it a jailable offense to use the internet in such a way that is neither improper nor interfering. I guess I don�t understand why we would want to jail jurors under such circumstances.It seems like a typical grandstanding situation, where a politician feels the need to "do something" about an issue that's been reported on in the press, without realizing nothing needs to be done.
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: california, juries, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
:eyeroll:
In other news, fire is hot, water is wet, sky is blue. Film at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :eyeroll:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, if you are a juror, you should not talk about the case you are sitting for. End. Amongst other things, it's respect for the system, and respect for the verdict to come.
I am amazed you don't get it. Perhaps if there was a piracy angle or some way to rag on about marginal costs, you might get it. But here, well, you are missing the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He states pretty clearly that current law is enough to cover and punish this behavior without jailing the juror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike, if you are a juror, you should not talk about the case you are sitting for. End. Amongst other things, it's respect for the system, and respect for the verdict to come.
I am amazed you don't get it. Perhaps if there was a piracy angle or some way to rag on about marginal costs, you might get it. But here, well, you are missing the obvious.
I think Mike's positions on things are easily understood as being the result of his general distrust and dislike of authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:#7 AC
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike, why do you hate America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From reading what Mike wrote, it seems he doesn't get it.
If a judge says don't talk about the case, then don't talk, tweet, blog or anything else....
Now, I'm not sure if the current system incorporates tweeting that well, so the law may need to be changed/updated, but based on "However, in a culture of sharing all sorts of things going on in one's life, it's difficult for some people to shut off. And, to be clear, I'm not entirely sure why it's so bad to talk about a case, in general.", it does seem as if Mike doesn't get it.
Of course I could be wrong, but I doubt it... 8)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one disagreed that you should follow the judge's orders. If he says don't talk about it, then don't. That is simple, just as you say. That part was covered in the laws already in place before this new one. This new one doesn't really add anything of value that wasn't already there. What Mike seems to not "get" is why taxpayer money and elected officials' time needed to be wasted to make a new law that covers what an old one already did. I don't get that either. I'm sure he understands that it's important to follow a judge's orders, but from that sentence in your quote, it's clear to me that he simply isn't sure why the judge would need to order you to not talk about a case...not that he isn't sure why you should have to listen to him, like you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you are told not to communicate with people about the case, the smart ones amongst us would understand that it means all communications. Other people may take that only as talking in person, example. This law just adds clarity to a situation that people might not understand.
If people feel an overwhelming urge to share every sniffle and bowel movement of their life, the law has to be adjusted to make sure they understand what the restrictions really are.
It's examples like this that prove that Mike just doesn't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
'As that link explains, courts already have broad powers to penalize jurors who disobey court rules, including "improper" conduct or "interfering" with a trial.'
The question is, if they already have the ability to punish the jurors for this, why do they need another law to punish the jurors for this? It's another example of grandstanding legislation. A waste of your tax dollars at work so politicians can look like they are doing something useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And, to be clear, I'm not entirely sure why it's so bad to talk about a case, in general. I can understand specific instances, based on what you're talking about, but an overall ban just seems unreasonable and unworkable."
Mike sees no issue with ignoring the existing restrictions and sees them as unreasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fixed that for ya.
There doesn't need to be a new law, people simply need to be told that the existing law covers new technologies as well as everything it covered in the past. You can tell them that without passing a new law and wasting taxpayer money.
Your example shows that YOU still do not get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> respect for the verdict to come.
What I've never understood is people like you who seem to believe you can compel respect by force.
You can compel submission but you can never compel respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I must admit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good golly, Mike. It's an old standard merely clarified.
"And, to be clear, I'm not entirely sure why it's so bad to talk about a case, in general."
THEN PLEASE DON'T CONTRADICT THOSE WHO DO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good golly, Mike. It's an old standard merely clarified.
A better use of your time and effort would be explaining why you think it is bad. Right now you just seem to be a hater who is determined to disagree with anything posted here, thus making it very easy for people to dismiss you as irrelevant to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good golly, Mike. It's an old standard merely clarified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good golly, Mike. It's an old standard merely clarified.
"And, to be clear, I'm not entirely sure why it's so bad to talk about a case, in general."
THEN PLEASE DON'T CONTRADICT THOSE WHO DO.
Mike will, of course, complain no matter what. I agree with you that if Mike is "not entirely sure why it's so bad," then perhaps he should do some research into the matter. Once he understands the arguments, then he can tell us why it's not so bad, which is obviously what he thinks. But that would take work.
The beauty of working backwards is that all that pesky research becomes unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I for one will sleep better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Titles a bit innacurate
"California wants to stop jurors from tweeting about Trials."
or even
"California adds jailtime to Jury Tweeters penalties"
Honestly, with our current prison population, you can bet California doesn't want to put people in jail... not when the jails are so full that they are letting people go early. What California does want, however, is for people to not break the law... and sometimes that does mean putting people in Jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Titles a bit innacurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
All of which has no bearing on this particular article. It's already against the law in California to ignore a judges order to not talk about a case. This adds a penalty of jailtime.
If people are ignoring court orders to not tweet, and this is resulting in mistrials, then I don't see they have a lot of options on how to stop it. Either they increase the penalties for doing it, enforce it through confiscation and monitoring, or make it lawful for jurors to talk with others about the trial. that last I don't see happening since it is standard throughout the country that jurors can't talk about cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
Of course, by my reading of whats going on the law doesn't mandate jail time, it allows the court to impose jail time if it things it's appropriate. Then again, I'm not sure I'd want a pissed off judge who just had 3 weeks of trial time wasted because someone couldn't keep their fingers in their pocket making the decision as to appropriate penalties for the offender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
Now jail gets their attention. It takes away something they want (freedom).
Implying that there is some secret conspiracy between the state and the prisons to put more people in prison by writing laws like this is rather silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
This is incredibly naive.
They have the most to gain or lose from a position. They have money and access that regular citizens do not have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Titles a bit innacurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
Sorry, your point is unconvincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Titles a bit innacurate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recent Tweet related Mistrials
March 2009, Arkansas court overturns 12.6 million dollar judgement because a juror used Twitter to send updates.
March 2009, Defense lawers in Vincent Fumo's corruption trial demanded mistrial because juror posted updates to Twitter and Facebook about the case.
January 2011, Murder trial of Lamont Cherry declared mistrial because a juror tweeted about the case.
May 2011, Murder trial of Casey Anthony ruled mistrial because a juror tweeted about the case.
I suspect other states will begin increasing penalties or taking away devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put em in prison!
But jurors really should not be speaking about their experiences to anyone. Otherwise 'Innocent till proven guilty' goes out of the window.
I have always thought jurors should be locked away for the duration of any trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "jurors s/b locked away for duration of any trial"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does not matter who or what they have done, because it is the bottom line that is important here - your rights be damned. Increased dividends is the goal from our for profit publicly held prison system and the slave labor is just the thing to make this country competitive again.
Why do you hate America so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202486252903&slreturn =1&hbxlogin=1
In the final analysis it all comes down to "fairness" in the conduct of a judicial proceeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tweeting Jurists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But there are already laws in place to handle this, all this does is make Jury Duty less appealing, and part of our due process is that you need to be judged by a jury of your peers. What is it going to say when anyone with a twitter account is going to be unable to serve on a Jury for fear of misconduct? Do you really want a jury of people who either cannot, or will not setup a twitter account to be judging you?
I realize I am talking this a little further than it already is, but the slippery slope is pretty clearly visible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]