Juror's Tweets Overturn Trial Verdict 423
D H NG writes "The Arkansas Supreme Court had overturned a murder conviction due to a juror tweeting during the trial. Erickson Dimas-Martinez was convicted in 2010 of killing a teenager and was sentenced to death. His lawyers appealed the case on account of a juror tweeting his musings during the trial and because another juror nodded off during the presentation of evidence. Tweets sent include 'The coffee here sucks' and 'Court. Day 5. here we go again.' In an opinion, Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote '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.' Dimas-Martinez is to be given a new trial."
Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously this is becoming a problem because you don't need to be on the phone to be on the phone anymore, simple solution is to give the juror's an emergency hotline number to pass out (if the mom dies or something) and take away the damned phones during trial.
Contrary to popular belief you will not die if you are not able to operate a telephone computer device for the length of a day.
Need a new law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand why jurors shouldn't receive outside information about the trial (though have a personal bone over expecting experts to magically forget everything they know for the purposes of serving on a jury). But non-detail-bearing outbound messages? Seriously, so what? That has no effect on the actual trial or the defendant's ability to enjoy the due process of law leading to a more-or-less fair verdict.
How do you know the juror hasn't already been compromised, and is sending out information regarding the direction of deliberation in a predetermined code? For all you know, "the coffee here sucks" could mean that the deliberation is going against the way the tampering party wants. Hell, it could even be code aimed at a news outlet so that they can get the scoop, by knowing what the verdict is trending towards beforehand? And if information can go out, information can be going in as well. If a juror has access to his twitter account, he has access to anyone who associated them with that account (like a follower), or targets him with a post. The goal of rules such as this is to attempt to avoid any appearance of impropriety or impartiality, whether there is any or not.
...what. (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't even know you were allowed to have your phone with you. I haven't personally had jury duty, but the rest of my family has and they said they were told to leave their phones in their cars. In fact, my family didn't even tell each other about any details of the case until after the trial, and we never asked. None of our business.
It boggles the mind that people think these things are okay. I don't know when or where I learned it, but I have it ingrained in me that until the trial is over, what happens in court, stays in court. Including how bad the coffee is.
That juror is a moron and deserves punishment. If I was the family of the murdered kid, I would be furious and incredibly upset. I'm sure he'll get convicted again anyway, but that's not the point. Having to go through the process again, especially after hearing the first time the guilty verdict. That has got to suck.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you get a fair verdict when one of the jurors fell asleep and the one looked at a murder trial as some mundane routine. Those jurors had someone's life in their hands and that's how they approached the trial? It's disgraceful and both of them should seriously rethink their entire lives. It's pathetic and the defendant absolutely deserves a second trial with jurors who take their responsibility seriously.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, tweeting about coffee and falling asleep during presentation of evidence, in a case about something slightly graver than a parking ticket?
I suppose the downside of a jury of one's peers is that one's peers are dangerously likely to be fuckwits with an attention span challenged by most commercial breaks...
Re:Uh oh. (Score:2, Insightful)
The possibility of it is actually *required* for the system to be just. You appear to confused about the concept.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. Juror is ordered not to post anything on the Internet. Juror *disregards* the order, therefore juror has shown he can't be trusted to follow instructions the judge has given him.
You can't undo an execution, nor can you compensate the executed person if the conviction was in error. If you're considering killing a man, common decency demands you at least provide him with a jury that can be trusted to follow instructions.
Re:Need a new law (Score:3, Insightful)
Any type of incident such as this should be considered obstruction of justice, or at least contempt of court, and should come with a fine and/or jail sentence Sure - Just as soon as jury duty becomes purely voluntary (and don't give me "then just don't register to vote"), or at the very least, easily deferrable to any convenient time within the next year or so once notified. What we have now amounts to nothing short of indentured servitude if you want to actually exercise your right to vote. At any time, they can call you in and unless you have a damned good reason, you can find the next few weeks of your life suddenly unavailable to you (and Zeus help you if you actually get called for any sort of high-profile capital case, unless you like the thought of effectively living in solitary confinement for six months).
You are provided with police service, fire service, protection from foreign enemies, insurance against money loss, unemployment if you can't get a job, medical assistance for those that are retired/too poor to afford it, food if you cannot afford it, infrastructure, and various environmental and consumer protections, to name a few. The government asks of you only 2 (or 3, if you are male) things: pay your taxes, enter the selective service (for males), and participate in jury duty. For all the government does, and all the people that sacrifice years of their lives (if not all of their lives) so that you can have all of these things, I think you can sacrifice a few weeks. Like I said, this is what is wrong with this country, at all levels. It's not "give and take" anymore. It's "see how much I can take, and how little I can give".
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Jury nullification is something which breaks the deal and makes it even harder to obtain justice
You clearly do not understand jury nullification. It *increase* justice, it doesn't make it harder to obtain justice. The jury can refuse to convict someone of an unjust law. Many laws are either not just, or are not just when applied to a particular circumstance where other factors were involved. In such cases, the jury has the power to nullify the unjust law.
It's disturbing that so many people are unaware of their moral and ethical obligations in this space.
No coffee tweet mentioned in the opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
From the opinion:
The opinion never mentioned the coffee tweet, but it did mention what tweets were much more of a flagrant violation of do not discuss the case outside of the court room. I do agree that it seems like Juror 2 was having a tough time with the case, and with the possible verdict and punishment. I think the court correctly overturned the conviction.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jury duty is not a paying job, it's your duty (hence the name) to help keep a just society functioning.
If anything, your payment is living in a land that isn't (yet) totalitarian. Avoiding jury duty is as bad for society as skipping out on paying taxes.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The precise reason the jury is allowed to do this is to make sure the law stands up to the scrutiny of the common people
The next guy who breaks the unjust law has a precedent on his hands in the case you described above.
But I don't wonder.. the above opinion is exactly the sort the lawyers and judges want you to have, because they don't want any common sense injected into their meddling with justice.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
When something goes to trial the plaintiff or prosecutor and the defense agree to a set of ground rules which include the jury only acting within their power and on the basis of the evidence given. Jury nullification is something which breaks the deal and makes it even harder to obtain justice as the prosecutor/plaintiff has to then worry about the opinions of the jury as to whether or not the defendant should be guilty, not whether or not they did it.
We have a legal system, not justice. A very important distinction. Otherwise we wouldn't have DAs who are measured by their conviction rates, "success" stacked towards those with the most money, innocents executed, being held without a trial etc.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nullification is a jury ignoring the law in favor of their personal preferences.
Correct.
That is not what a jury is there to do. They are not charged with weighing what the law says, only whether it applies and whether the defendant is guilty of it.
Wrong. Absolutely and unarguably false, and quite frankly a dangerous lie.
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams
Jury nullification is our last defense against tyranny. When the legislative branch creates unjust laws, the judicial branch allows them to stand, and the executive branch enforces them, it is the juror's moral duty to refuse to convict. That is the sole reason for juries to exist. -- Me
Re:Uh oh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Like anything it can be abused. That is why there are 12 or more members of jury. It provides a pretty adequate check on the power of any one juror. So one crazy that thinks practically every law should never be enforced is not easily able to run away with nullification.
Nullification is rarely needed but very important to justice in those situations where the law as written fails to fairly describe a situation. Most likely because the legislators did not envision it or perhaps because a special interest *bought* it. I am glad I live in a nation where if I stood trial and 12 of my peers can agree that if they had been in my situation they'd have done the same and it would have been the right thing, I would go free.
Yes a prosecutor can decide not to bring charges, but \s?he is one person who faces all kinds of varying pressures, from different places. The jury on the other hand is 12 unknown people who's identities are hopefully not widely knowable at least until after the trial is concluded.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody actually gets fired for serving on jury duty... or taking maternity leave... or putting in their obligatory National Guard time.
Funny, though, how much discretion your employer has on who gets promoted, who gets raises, who gets sacked when hard times come.
Re:a serious duty should pay more as well (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand the word duty its something you must do. Even if you were not compensated at all it would still be your duty. Occasional jury duty is just one of the many prices we must pay for living in a free society.
Look at this way unlike your taxes, which are all to often stolen by some corporate welfare fat cat, at some justice will be done when you serve on jury.
Re:Why are Juror's even allowed to have their phon (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we split the difference and call it contempt of court?
You know, that crime that already exists, and doesn't run afoul of the 8th Amendment?
Re:Uh oh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but people on the internet argue for jury nullification for drug dealers and the like, because marijuana being illegal is a "crime" itself.
As a person who uses the internet, I agree. Marijuana should not be illegal and I could not, in good conscience, vote to convict someone of breaking the law that prohibit marijuana possession or sale. Such action would directly conflict with my own moral standards, and in my opinion, it would be a crime against humanity to allow another human being to be imprisoned for marijuana, regardless of what the law suggests. This would be exactly the type of situation where jury nullification is necessary. It takes a long time to change the law; why should we, as citizens and jurors, facilitate the destruction of innocent lives for trivial nonviolent "offenses" simply because these unjust, outdated laws are still on the books?
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see why we can't pay jurors some modest amount, though. Surely it's in all our interests to keep a justice system functioning. Occasionally, trials take a long time, so a jury may be sequestered for weeks. Why should the cost be borne entirely by the people who, by random chance, end up on the jury for such trials, especially since they're already sacrificing in other ways (e.g. not seeing their families or attending to other business for weeks)? The financial burden, at least, seems like it could be generally shared by taxpayers, at least to the level of reimbursing them at minimum wage.
re: jury didn't believe he killed her (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I don't see any problem with the scenario you described?
A court case involving a jury *should* be about what they believe took place (or didn't take place), based upon all of the evidence and arguments brought before them. If the engineer types are fixated on scientific evidence showing a person incinerated his wife's body so want to find him guilty, but nobody else on that jury is sold on it for whatever other reasons -- then perhaps the guy should go free?
It's the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury that the evidence supports his claims. Not everyone has a technical background, and not everyone who does is very good at thinking "outside the box" either, in cases where maybe there's an alternate explanation for the events to the one they're so certain took place by focusing strictly on the technical details?
Scientists and engineers are wrong sometimes, after all. We have bridges that collapsed shortly after being built, presumably by engineers who were confident they constructed it in a sound manner.....
Bad decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Things are never as simple as Internet Libertarians think they are.
Conversely, Internet Libertarians are *always* as simple as I think they are.
Sue the judge (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Racism, Justice, and Jury Nullification (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on the facts.
Prosecutorial discretion is very large. Frequently the wrong decisions are made. Prosecuting a child when a group of children are playing with a gun, it goes off, and someone dies. Prosecuting someone who is insane as if they were not. Prosecuting someone for political reasons rather than because it makes sense. Sometimes a verdict of not guilty is the right result even when someone is guilty, because the consequences of a guilty verdict are more harmful than helpful.
The political process is deeply flawed, and legislative bodies will almost never vote to reduce sentences or decriminalize activities because that is rarely politically popular.
There is a difference between ex-post and ex-ante decisionmaking. In front of a house, one makes a judgment between alternative acts, and the law is one factor that weighs heavily in those alternatives. In a jury, one decides what the consequences of that choice should be beyond those already encountered.
A judge has plenty of immunity. He also has a massive amount of "discretion." If a judge applies all of his discretion in favor of one party, it effectively creates an unfair trial--at the very least an unjust one--even though there is no room for review on appeal.
Where is your hate crimes claim from?
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
No more than a cop enforcing a bad law violates the trust society places in him. Jury nullification is part of the checks and balances of our three-branch system of government. The legislature can choose not to pass a bad law, but if they do the executive can choose not to enforce it, and if all else fails the judiciary (via the jury) can choose not to convict under it.