As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

Mar 18, 2009 2 Replies
As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up open original image

As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up



By JOHN SCHWARTZ March 18, 2009



Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge's instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.



Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.



"We were stunned," said a defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he had been on the verge of winning the case. "It's the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head."



It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.



...



formatting link


This just happened in a Philadelphia Federal trial that just completed; a juror was "twittering". However, in this case the judge determined it was not harmful and the case proceeded. The defendant was found guilty and defense is appealing.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Was the juror using Twitter in the courtroom? Was it related to the case, or just a possible distraction?

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Apparently not in the courtroom. Yes it was related to the case, but apparently not illegally so.

Except: "Monday's [guilty] verdict came shortly after the judge ruled that a juror could remain on the panel despite his posts about the case on Facebook and Twitter.

"The juror told the judge in a closed-door hearing early in the day that none of his online "friends" had commented back to him about the Fumo case. The juror said the posts were his way of talking to himself and expressing his emotions, and were not intended to communicate anything to others, according to defense lawyer Peter Goldberger, who attended the session."

The defense believes the posts "tainted" the jury and said it plans to raise the issue on appeal.

[Afterward, in interviews the jurors in this case said the evidence of guilt was strong.]

Refs:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required