Tweeting Juror Leads To Retrial For Guy Convicted Of Murder
from the but-why? dept
We've discussed in the past how tweeting jurors represent a new sort of challenge for courts, who haven't quite figured out what to make of the practice. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently overturned a murder conviction and ordered a new trial, because one of the jurors was tweeting occasionally during the case. As in the past, I tend to think this is a pretty big overreaction. From the tweets quoted, it does not appear he actually discussed any specifics of the case at hand, but rather some rather general thoughts:Mr Franco tweeted: "Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken... We each define the great line."I fail to see how those should lead to the end result being suspect in any way. It doesn't appear he discussed the case at all, but merely shared some of his general thoughts. It appears the court would prefer that he pretend he not even have those thoughts at all. How does that possibly make sense? Denying someone from mentioning what they're thinking doesn't stop them from thinking what they're thinking.
Other tweets sent included: "The coffee here sucks" and "Court. Day 5. here we go again".
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perhaps. But that in itself doesn't justify overturning a conviction. It would also not be "appropriate" for the juror to come to court wearing nothing but boxers, but that wouldn't trigger a mistrial.
The real problem is when he potentially looks at the RESPONSES to the tweets. In such a high-profile case, if you let the world know that you're a juror, it's likely that friends or even strangers might want to post their thoughts at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Double Standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it should! There should be legislation that enforces this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rather than guess about what the court was thinking and rebut hypothetical arguments, you could actually read the opinion and find out for real (you know, basic journalism stuff): http://www.arktimes.com/images/blogimages/2011/12/08/1323359339-twittercaswe.pdf Imagine how powerful your rebuttal of the court's reasoning would be if you addressed the court's actual reasoning in your analysis. Without that, it's just tinfoil hat psychobabble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Twitter deal still seems really thin to me. I'm not sure how a juror posting vague, poetry-like expressions about the seriousness of their duties or opinions about the court's coffee translates into the denial of a fair trial to the victim. They don't even attempt to show any prejudicial content in the messages.
That said, the juror sleeping seems like the bigger deal of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is still stupid. If you read the dialouge between the juror and the judge, I think you can see where he would think that his posting were OK because they did not discuss specifics. And even if the juror knew he was wrong, it still shouldn't result in overturning. As the court states, "a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial."
And I agree, the sleeping juror was the real problem. Not the guy posting vauge thoughts and his impression of the coffee. The sleeping guy missed some testimony and the defense objected at the time - that juror should have been removed, and I agree with the court that the failure to remove him is grounds for a new trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this person in the jury actually did well to not reveal facts about the trial. Modern technology is part of our lives and if they are unhappy with this event then good luck finding people who do not use the Internet or Cell Phone.
It would be much better if the court provided a booklet about what you can and cannot do. Then if they want to make public statements they then only need to declare when and where.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure is he was ballsy, or just stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was also the issue with the juror who preferred sleeping. Well not everyone can withstand technical discussions it seems.
This murder case is a pretty nasty one. Robbery aimed. So he demanded a cell phone from his 'friends' which they did not have, demanded money also no, wanted the victim's clothes and then he shot him dead just because.
Cheap life indeed when if not for $10 or some ancient cell phone this victim could still be alive. You can only wonder the life of this murderer to understand how he saw such actions as acceptable.
I would put it down to American gun culture. Bang, bang, shoot them dead... just like on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Jack Thompson? Is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well you sure have a crazy culture. You jail more people than the rest of the World combined.
Then exactly how does it feel when someone can pull a gun on you at any time? Forget to bring your wallet to a robbery and dead you are. Or how about attending a shooting spree at your local mall? Parents day at your kids school can soon become a massacre.
I should give up already when American love their guns. You need them to save you from the bad guys. Oddly enough most cases highlight the bad guys shoot first.
So you murder your family, friends and neighbours at a rate greater than the deaths from all American Wars combined. Then death from terrorism is only a small smudge next to your annual gun deaths.
An odd place with some large racial tensions. Well here is but one more example. The year is almost over so that is a few thousand more gun deaths added to your list.
Then here I am being able to visit my local mall knowing a gun shooting is near on impossible. We in the UK are quite lacking in guns and the gun culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You jail more people than the rest of the World combined.
Which is the result of a drug War that has failed along with a gun policy that is inconsistent depending on the state you are in.
So you murder your family, friends and neighbours at a rate greater than the deaths from all American Wars combined. Then death from terrorism is only a small smudge next to your annual gun deaths.
Bullshit. Yes, there is a 1 in 4 billion chance of a terrorist attack, but there is no correlation between terrorism and parricide.
We in the UK are quite lacking in guns and the gun culture.
No, you don't have a gun culture, but your ethnocentricity is unappreciated and biased. It centers around blaming some places having responsible gun laws such as Arizona (open carry) or Kansas with being responsible for criminals getting guns. I don't know where you get your information, but I found that at least 21,000+ people have been killed by guns in the UK. There are a variety of reasons that the US has a high homicide rate, and it's not necessarily because of guns being freely distributed. They are not. You should go to educate yourself on the mitigating factors of the United States before ignorantly complaining about the country in a rant that serves no purpose to assist your argument.
Here are valid arguments for high homicide rates: US War on Drugs
The Second Amendment and how it affects states in employing gun control
Actual research into the effectiveness of a federal ban.
These will do much better for your argument than bigoted statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, you are correct in the assessment that many people in prison do not belong there. But that is inevitable with a for profit prison system. And they laughed when asked, "what could possibly go wrong?".
I have read that the US per capita incarceration rate is rather high compared to other nations, (were #1 rah!) but I somehow missed the tidbit to which you refer - that the sum total US quantity exceeds that of the entire planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yea, we def have a prison problem. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On full prisons on sheer numbers you're right though the UK is no slouch when it comes to packing prisons either, Then again, if China didn't quickly execute people for a wide range of offenses up to and including looking the wrong way at a party functionary they'd easily win that award.
Your screed gos on to criticize American gun culture, largely handgun culture. For what it's worth there are about 50 different sets of rules in the United States about who can legally purchase a handgun and whether or not they can carry one. (More if you total up cities that can have their own too.)
Coming from England which has a thriving custom hand and log gun industry that's a bit rich. And, even with relatively tight handgun ownership rules and registration still has one of the highest per capita possession of the things in the world.
Not all Americans love their handguns in the mad, passionate way you think they do. Most, in fact, loathe them. A small minority make most of the noise. But all agree, however that their Constitution is right on protecting the right to own them. Most of the discussion and argument is around the "a well regulated militia" bit.
And given the UK's recent record of shooting sprees I'd not point an accusing finger at the US when it comes to that. Or the relative safety of malls in the UK compared to the USA.
I'll agree with the high murder rate in the United States but like anywhere else it's rarely stranger murder. It's most often immediate family or friends and associates. Even in the UK. And while I'm on the topic of high murder rates; until the end of World War I it was England that had the highest murder rate in the world by handgun or any other means.
For what it's worth I feel safer in New York City than I do in London. I've never been mugged in the Big Apple. I wish I could say the same for London.
As for race relations and ethnic tensions I would advise you that England is hardly the place I'd look to for an example of good relations. Let me expand that to most of Europe as well. Just so you don't feel too, too picked on. At least Americans are struggling to get their relations better. The English seem to be getting much, much worse. (We Canadians are somewhere in the middle. Sometimes perhaps much worse because our racism is expressed quietly or silently though while denying it we act on it.)
Oh, and while I'm on that sort of thing have you lot solved your class problems and wars yet? Please let me know when you have.
"We in the UK are quite lacking in guns and the gun culture." Bull. Complete, smelly cow patties. Fail. Untrue. A lot of Englishmen want to kid themselves that they have no gun culture but you have a rick history of same. Remember, you're the lot that invented such "sports" as fox hunting and where the middle class still spends weekends skeet shooting so they can pretend they're upper class. I'd go on but it's likely pointless. Of course England has a gun culture, Scotland has a gun culture, Wales has a gun culture. Northern Ireland certainly does.
Oh, and as for numbers you Brits are swimming in firearms. A lot of them in finely crafted wood display cases but you're still swimming in them. Like most people you just ignore that detail because life has to go on, the mall must be visited and one occasionally has to walk down the street.
Oh, and Canada has at LEAST one gun culture. More than likely two. One for the big three metro areas and one for rural and semi rural areas. The other major cities seem split. BUT, like my relatives in England and Scotland we all know at least one person who legally owns at least one weapon and probably more people we know and where the subject just hasn't come up.
The only thing funnier than the English is their occasional burst of confused morality. To which I'd add, a close second are the outbursts of superiority and smugness from south of Hardians's Wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guns
In the United States around 13,000 people die each year from gun crime. If the US had the same firearms murder rate as Germany, or the Scandinavian countries, the comparable death toll by firearms would be roughly 1,000 instead of 13,000. If it had the same firearms murder rate as the UK or Canada, it would be about 2,000 instead of about 13,000.
Since the end of WWII, completely excluding suicides, something well in excess of half a million more Americans have been killed by firearms than would have been the case if America had a firearms murder rate even as low as Canada (there are more than a dozen countries that have a lower murder rate than Canada, so that isn't a particularly high standard to meet). The actual number is almost certainly closer to 3/4 million.
That is more people than have been killed in any of America's wars, including the Civil War. In the last 100 years, it is not all that far from the total of all Americans killed in all of America's wars put together.
This is excluding all the suicides that could have been prevented. This is excluding all the people who were shot but have recovered... physically at least.
America's political belief over guns is a vastly greater menace to your fellow countrymen than is your government; than is any terrorist group; than is any foreign military threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guns
Lol-Wut?
At first ... benefit of doubt was granted,
this however, takes the cake.
That axe being ground, just what is it for, dare I ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guns
Typical middle class English bunkum and pretension.
(I'm Canadian, by the way, stuck between the US and England when they get into this sort of discussion as ever on everything. Though the English middle class and those aspiring too it are often either amusing or intolerable. In this it's becoming intolerable.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure it does
Sure it does. When I close my eyes, I can't see you and you can't see me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure it does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the article
"Because of the very nature of Twitter as an... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions," wrote Associate Justice Donald Corbin.
"Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts or other information about a case in such a public fashion."
One of Mr Dimas-Martinez's lawyers said the case was likely to bring in new rules.
"It's not about your right to tweet or be on Facebook," Janice Vaughn said.
"It's about protecting the right of the person who may end up behind bars or end up losing a significant amount of money in a civil case."
Works for me. In a capital murder case The juror disobeyed jury instructions. Yes it is easy to twit or post on facebook, but somethings just do not belong there. Just because it is easy does not make something right or legal to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(fal lacy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do people feel this constant need to expose the rest of the world to their boring lives? I really don't want to know every action of my friends. If something interesting happens in your life, share it, but please keep the mundane aspects of your life to yourself. No one cares what you are eating for dinner, no one cares what color shirt you're wearing today, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deterrent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
purpose is not to prevent you from having thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]