backtop

Internet Juror Removed From Jury Over Facebook Post
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - February 2, 2009 10:55 AM
Print 47 comment(s) - last by MrBlastman.. on Feb 3 at 12:12 PM

  (Source: United Artists)
Juror removed from jury after likening jury duty to hell

Social networking is fast moving from something that in the beginning was only used for teens and college students to something that many people of all ages use to keep in touch with friends and colleges. The two largest of the social networking platforms are Facebook and MySpace.

The traffic generated by social networking sites is massive with Facebook boasting 200 million global users. The problem with so many users is that information you post on your Facebook page could be viewed by those you don’t expect, like lawyers and law enforcement.

Barry Price, a juror on a Hamilton county civil suit found out that comments on Facebook could cause serious trouble. Price was a juror on a case of a worker injured in a railroad accident seeking monetary damages for his injuries. Price posted a comment on Facebook that read, "Barry Price is sitting in hell ... aka jury duty."

The plaintiff's attorney, Stan Chesley provided an affidavit to Judge William Mallory showing the comment and asked that Price be removed from the jury citing how Price viewed the case where his client could win millions or nothing based on Price's verdict. The judge removed Price form the jury.

Chesley then asked the judge to declare a mistrial, which the judge refused to do. Judge Mallory said, "He [Price] has been removed from service. Let's move on, folks."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
missing a big detail here
By kattanna on 2/2/2009 12:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
was one of a pool of potential jurors chosen to decide the outcome of a civil suit. In it


he wasnt one of the jurors, he was simply on the pool of potential jurors, which implies the case hadnt even started yet. so before things began, they found this guy already posting about being on jury duty. its not a big leap to ponder he might start divulging details as the case proceeded.

they were right to let him go.




RE: missing a big detail here
By callmeroy on 2/2/2009 12:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
First I agree with poster "Kattanna", if he was just in the pool of jurors and the cased didn't start yet -- its fine with me and actually is very common that he was "let go" for a small infraction. Having reported to jury duty a few times since the time I hit 18 , and actually getting selected to be a jury member on two of those instances -- I can tell you they will excuse you for very little believe it or not. That said, I don't mean if you have a hair cut appointment or whatever they'll excuse you -- I mean very little as relating to perception or judgment. I was excused because my cousin is on Philly SWAT and the trial was about a police officer that wasn't even in the same city. I can tell you my cousin didn't know any officer at all at the department the trial was about.

It was because of perception of course -- they thought I'd view the case automatically in a particular light because of my family members being in law enforcement.

They were right to remove this potential jury from the pool...again perception -- call it silly, but when you have a pool of jurors - why waste the time or hassle with someone who gives you even the slighest "bad feeling" or whatever you want to call it? Just toss him and get another juror.

What bothers me more, far more, is the underlying story of now Facebook and Myspace are being reviewed by folks in legal capacities now? I thought they were for fun those sites? I don't know someone very creepy to me about all this, is this the small start to something that will grow out of control in years to come?


RE: missing a big detail here
By KashGarinn on 2/3/2009 10:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Just another reason why you shouldn't haev a public profile on facebook, only allow friends.

I disagree that the guy should have been removed, no one likes doing juryduty, only retards, fanatics and insane people like doing juryduty, and only Big Brother would want us to actually like it.

It's a necessity, and a positive balance of power, but likable? hell no.


RE: missing a big detail here
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2009 12:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really it is another reason why to not use Facebook or Myspace at all. If you don't want the world knowing about how you feel - don't "post it on teh intarnets." Because... we all know, the Internet is Serious Business.


RE: missing a big detail here
By Fanon on 2/2/2009 1:41:17 PM , Rating: 3
"its not a big leap to ponder he might start divulging details as the case proceeded."

I think it is a big leap. How many people groan at getting the jury duty card in the mail? How many of those people tell others they're going to be on jury duty? How many of those people divulge details of the case when it's in process?

By your logic, I'd say at least 75% of people selected to serve on a jury will willingly divulge case details.


RE: missing a big detail here
By kattanna on 2/2/2009 3:19:08 PM , Rating: 1
true, but this person did it in an openly public forum and not privately to his wife..friend..etc

in doing so, one could even argue, that since his comments were "published" per se on a website, that he broke the rule not to convey anything to the press.


RE: missing a big detail here
By bodar on 2/2/2009 10:08:15 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, because announcing to the world that you have jury duty, is conveying details to the press. If that's the only thing he said, then he didn't mention what trial it was. Kinda vague, don't you think? The judge may not have wanted him on the jury for his bad attitude, but it's pretty silly to argue that he was giving out info to "the press".


RE: missing a big detail here
By Fanon on 2/2/2009 11:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter how big the audience is? Telling people you dislike jury duty is telling people you dislike jury duty. Price was dismissed because his opinion of jury duty was publicly viewable by anyone who wanted to see it.

And as you pointed out earlier (and is in the linked article), he was a potential juror. The voir dire was currently taking place, and it is designed so that both the prosecution and defense get the jurors that they want on the jury. There's really nothing to see here. Move along.

One can't argue that stating you have jury duty goes against the non-disclosure rule (it's not just the press; it's anyone). Disclosing the fact that you're serving on a jury isn't grounds for dismissal; if it were, no one would be jurors due to how many people eventually know we have to serve (spouse/family, bosses, coworkers, ect). The non-disclosure rule applies to details of the case.


RE: missing a big detail here
By Nik00117 on 2/3/2009 11:50:18 AM , Rating: 1
I hate jury duty, I'd of posted my ass over the internet trying to get revoked from Jury Duty.

My uncle was once called to Jury Duty and during the selection process he was talking about how the defendant should get fuck all. He said that the defeandant was an asshole and everything.

He didn't mean it at all, he just wanted off.

I'd of done tthe same thing.

If I ever get sent to Jury Duty i'm doing the same thing. Getting my ass kicked off as soon as possible.


By invidious on 2/2/2009 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 5
"...found out that comments on Facebook could cause serious trouble."

And getting out of jury duty is "serious trouble" how? It seems to me like he would be very happy with how this has played out.




Precedent
By Fnoob on 2/2/2009 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's one way out of jury duty...




um
By judasmachine on 2/2/2009 3:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
I am going to keep this trick in mind!

Seriously it looks like everyone in this case is happy, so why the debate? Everyone got what they wanted...




There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By Beenthere on 2/2/09, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2009 11:02:54 AM , Rating: 5
I would disagree that he did anything wrong. It doesn't appear he disclosed details of the case. Simply expressing a commonly-held belief that jury duty is distasteful doesn't appear to be a particularly heinous act.


By marvdmartian on 2/2/2009 11:27:13 AM , Rating: 1
Except that civil lawsuits require the jury to use their opinion of the matter more than a jury member of a criminal case would. Criminal jury members are supposed to use only the facts of the case, civil suit jury members use opinion and their own feelings on the matter to make a decision, after hearing all the sworn testimony.

That being said, if this guy openly says he thinks jury duty is hell, then the lawyers can surmise that he will have already made his decision on the case, without hearing all the testimony in the case. This gives an unfair advantage to the defendant, which is why the plaintiff's attorney had every right to request his removal from the jury.

Besides which, when the judge tells the jury members not to discuss the case with anyone outside of court, they really mean it. I'm certain this guy got that instruction, and by posting to his facebook account, he violated that rule, and deserved the removal. He should hope he's not judged to be disrespectful to the court, or he could see a fine and/or some time behind bars.


By Suntan on 2/2/2009 11:36:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That being said, if this guy openly says he thinks jury duty is hell, then the lawyers can surmise that he will have already made his decision on the case, without hearing all the testimony in the case.


I think going to the dentist is hell… …I am still inclined to listen to what he has to say and not let it affect my judgment of the facts. Jury duty is the same thing. It’s called being a grown up. You know, doing things you have to do, even though you may not enjoy doing them.

I don’t see how a person’s distaste for jury duty in general could imply that they would make up their mind a priori. They may not put a lot of effort into listening to the case, but that doesn’t mean they decide which way to vote beforehand.

-Suntan


By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2009 11:37:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
if this guy openly says he thinks jury duty is hell, then the lawyers can surmise that he will have already made his decision on the case
How so? I think jury duty is hell also...but I haven't made up my mind about the next case to which I'll be called.

quote:
He should hope he's not judged to be disrespectful to the court, or he could see a fine and/or some time behind bars.
Jail time? For exercising his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech? I'm sorry, but your opinion is rather frightening.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By Alpha4 on 2/2/2009 1:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jail time? For exercising his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech? I'm sorry, but your opinion is rather frightening.
That wasn't Marv's opinion. He's suggesting that, in a worst case scenario, the Judge might view his message as disrespectful to the court and would have legal grounds to impose jail time.
I personally don't know if that if a Judge has that authority in such a case.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2009 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
A judge has remarkably wide powers for imposing jail time for contempt of court. For instance, had he asked this juror to remove the Facebook posting, and the juror refused, he could have him jailed indefinitely, without any trial or due process of any sort, in order to compel action.


By afkrotch on 2/2/2009 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Course the Judge knows the laws and knows full well he can't order the juror to remove that posting. Now if the juror posted every little thing about the case, ya, he'd be sitting in jail right now.


By Fanon on 2/2/2009 11:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Besides which, when the judge tells the jury members not to discuss the case with anyone outside of court, they really mean it. I'm certain this guy got that instruction, and by posting to his facebook account, he violated that rule, and deserved the removal."

Stating that you're serving on jury is a bit different than discussing the case outside of court. He did the former, not that latter.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By AlexWade on 2/2/2009 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the juror Barry Price. Jury duty is a flawed system. What this country needs is professional jurors, people with some legal education but who aren't put through the whole lawyer gambit. With average Joe off the street, it makes it easier for the prosecution or defense to play to emotions and pervert justice. With professional jurors, it would be much harder to slant the law. Lawyers play the crowd, so to speak. It would also save time for jury selection, thus giving everyone a speedy trial. We could even require pre-law students to spend a certain number of hours in jury duty before they become lawyers.

I realize the Constitution states that everyone has a right to be tried by a jury of his peers. So we might have to amend the Constitution.

I was called for jury duty on a capital case about 6 years ago. While I was still on that case, I was called yet again for jury duty for a trial going on at the same time. The whole system is flawed. That should never happen.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By AlexWade on 2/2/2009 11:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
Also, is it scary that I have seen the movie 12 Angry Men from which that picture is from?


By bodar on 2/2/2009 10:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why scary? It's a classic. I'm pretty sure we watched in middle school.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/2/2009 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 5
Not professional jurors. Simply professionals. If your being tried on an IT case, such as hacking, defacing, etc... make sure the jury is comprised of IT professionals that understand the concepts full and well. If your being nailed for accounting fraud, make sure the jury is comprised of CPA's, etc... etc....

Then again this would make Lawyers obsolete in a hurry since Jury's wouldn't be as suseptible to the BS lawyers try to peddle in the court room.


By cochy on 2/2/2009 12:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's what expert witnesses are for.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By acase on 2/2/2009 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. This wouldn't even require a big amendment of the constitution because in reality, similar professionals would be much more of a "peer" than the average joe.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2009 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Under English law (from which our legal system descends) the phrase meant lords would be judged by lords, commoners by other commoners. But the Constitution covers criminal trials only; you wouldn't need any amendment for civil cases.

However, I dispute that such a jury would be superior. Would a jury of 12 doctors be likely to convict another doctor of malpractice? Would a jury of 12 music executives be a fair jury for someone accused of downloading songs?


By bodar on 2/2/2009 10:21:25 PM , Rating: 3
It could be hilarious though: Some kid gets arrested for marijuana possession, and his jury consists of Cheech Marin, Tommy Chong, George Clinton, Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith, Seth Rogan, James Franco, Bill Maher, Snoop Dogg, Method Man, Red Man, and Michael Phelps (couldn't resist).


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/2/2009 12:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
There's a reason that belief is commonly held. Jury Duty is enough to frustrate anyone with an IQ higher than 50. Lawyers want to get the biggest nitwits they can find, that are easy to manipulate and won't think for themselves. If your in the pool of people that actually have a brain and know how to use it, Jury Duty is indeed Hell.


By Alexstarfire on 2/2/2009 12:41:35 PM , Rating: 1
I would normally agree with you, but one of my friend's got selected to be on a jury and he was the salutatorian of our class. He's currently going to Standford. Definitely one of the smartest people I know.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/2/2009 3:27:16 PM , Rating: 1
Clearly not witty enough to get out of jury duty then. It's usually quite easy to get out of it. Simply be opinionated and straight to the point. Your friend is what one would call "book smart" with zero "street smarts". In the geek world it would be more accurate to say high intelligence but low wisdom. In either case, he passed over a simple deflection to sit on a jury and got straddled with it.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By Kenenniah on 2/3/2009 12:27:36 AM , Rating: 4
I guess it never ocurred to you that some smart people might just simply want to do their civic duty. I am by no means a fan of being on jury duty, but I don't purposefully try to get out of it. Instead I choose to do my best and act appropriately as I hope others would were I on trial. Our court system has it's flaws, but that doesn't mean I should turn my back on it and not do my part to try and make it work.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/3/2009 11:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
A very good point. A lot of 'smart' people got off jury duty in Los Angeles, and OJ got away with murder as a result. How many of us want that happening in our own community?


By Motoman on 2/2/2009 12:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am inclined to agree with that. Stating your displeasure with being assigned jury duty is not a big deal...he's an idiot for posting it on teh intarweb, but still...he has a right to say "I'm on jury duty and I don't like it."


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By Dreifort on 2/2/2009 12:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are not jurors told not to read newspapers, or outside reporting that could affect the testimony they have heard in court? Or does this apply only to crimes of high public interest?

Depending on when he posted comment, the comment could show he was accessing the internet while on jury duty. I would assume this is a no-no. First Facebook, now Smart Phones and Netbooks will be next tools attacked in court rooms for giving ppl access to Facebook/MySpace as new tools of harassment/crimes.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/2/2009 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
The rules of civil lawsuits are more lax than criminal lawsuits.


By jay401 on 2/2/2009 4:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
No it's not that he did something wrong, it's that he said something which indicated a potential bias that the defense or prosecution found they could use to their advantage to ditch him and thus were able to use it to their advantage to remove him from the jury pool.
Unless I've missed something, this isn't a matter of the person doing something legally WRONG, it's about them sharing something in a venue that was public enough that it made it back to the courthouse and thus was able to be used to excuse him from the jury/pool.

In other words, if you want to appear impartial and get selected so you don't have to end up sitting there all week, you want to appear to be simply a pleasant citizen happy to serve their country. Posting a FaceBook status about how sucky it is to be on a jury is not a bright idea. That's all.

Don't miss the point. It's not that he did something criminal, or talked about the case itself, it's just that he made clear a bias and that was used to get him excused and he'll probably have to serve all over again because they most likely didn't count his wasted time there as time served unless he was actually selected and sat on a jury.

The BIG question is, does he get his day(s) spent in the courthouse as 'time served' toward jury duty, or will his name go right back in the lottery system to potentially pick him again.

If he doesn't get this counted as service, that's the worst part for him, because he might get called up again soon and won't be able to get excused for having recently served his commitment.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By chmilz on 2/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By blaster5k on 2/2/2009 11:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
It seems he inadvertently found a way out. I'd say he's a lucky man. He got what he wanted.


By Screwballl on 2/2/2009 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
inadvertently... or maybe planned?

I know if I am ever called to jury duty, I now know how to get out of it...


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By tastyratz on 2/2/2009 11:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
Same,
This just presents an excuse for anyone who doesn't want to be in jury duty.

As a generalization (which of course all of them have exceptions) Unless your unemployed or a lonely housewife - most people don't enjoy going to jury duty. What small percentage of people actually think of it as NOT being hell?


By Spivonious on 2/2/2009 11:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't had the honor of serving yet, but when the time comes, I will gladly attend and pay attention to the case. It's one of the few things that separates citizens from legal residents (another being the right to vote).

Kudos to the 12 Angry Men photo. Great movie.

As far as the substance of the article, I don't think he should have been removed. He didn't disclose any facts of the case. It's no different than if he called his wife and said "I'm on jury duty."


By invidious on 2/2/2009 12:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your notions of honor will fade as you sit in the waiting room for 8 hours only to never get your name called.


RE: There are a lot of dumb people in this world
By tastyratz on 2/2/2009 2:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Honor by definition of the propaganda machine. I by no means demean my American citizenship and I am proud of my country, but Jury duty is called a civic duty and not a citizenship benefit for a reason.
It is no more honor than being registered for the draft.

Personally I would rather wear a bowtie to the jury selection pool and not get picked in the first place :-)


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/2/2009 3:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
When your screened for jury duty be as witty and opinionated as you can be. Gets you out every single time. I've successfully avoided it several times with such method.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki