Tag: juries

Jodi Arias Retrial Set For March 17th

Thirty-three-year-old Jodi Arias was convicted of first-degree murder on May 8, 2013 in a case that gripped the nation; however, the initial jury was unable to decide on a penalty. Some jurors favored sentencing Arias to life in prison while other jurors preferred the death penalty. According to a Maricopa County Superior Court spokesperson, the retrial for the penalty phase is slated to begin on March 17, 2014. Several twists and turns have led to the penalty phase retrial being delayed (such as Arias wanting to replace her attorney as well as the request to move the case out of the Phoenix area due to the high level of publicity) though the trial is now set to move forward.

During a July interview with CBS News’ Crimesider former juror Diane Schwartz explained the reason behind her support for the death penalty. “In deliberations, when we went through the autopsy pictures and I actually held them in my hands, that’s when I really felt it was a death penalty case. It was too horrendous.” Schwartz said before explaining the opposing opinion considered by other jurors. “Some individuals [on the jury] looked at some of the mitigating factors. For example, that Jodi had been abused – they felt that she had been abused by Travis and as a child. They didn’t feel she had the best family life. They felt that mitigating factor outweighed the aggravating factors. That was the biggest concern.”

Jodi Arias was found guilty of the 2008 murder of Travis Alexander, who had been shot and stabbed inside his Mesa, Arizona, home. Arias testified that she killed Alexander in self-defense. The brutality of the crime scene may have contributed to the ultimate decision of the jurors when reaching a guilty verdict. The horrific details of the crime scene detail 27 stab marks throughout Alexander’s body as well as a shot to the head and a stab mark across his throat.

Diane Schwartz offered her insight regarding the decision process of the jurors for the penalty phase retrial. “Individual choice is what it comes down to and the makeup of the jury. It will be very hard. They won’t have all of the emotional ties that we had. They won’t have the four-and-a-half months of testimony. They will be given a capsulated version.”

Image Via NDN

January 13, 2014
Ponzi Schemer Allen Stanford Blames Twitter For Conviction

Earlier this month, Allen Stanford was convicted on 13 out of 14 counts relating to a giant Ponzi scheme that he’d been running for the past two decades. As chairman of the Stanford Financial Group, Stanford reportedly committed $7 billion dollars worth of fraud, a staggering figure that really only compares to that other famous Ponzi schemer.

Now he wants a new trial. And one of his major points of contention centers around social media use by the jury of his peers.

According to Stanford’s lawyer, Ali Fazel, one of the problems they had with the original trial was that is devolved into a “media circus.” And we know what that means – that a jury would be unable to enter the courtroom each day with an unbiased mind.

The main problem? Twitter. The motion claims that the judge in the trial allowed reporters to tweet freely from inside the courtroom, even at times when things were going on without the jury present. The motion then claims that the judge failed to tell the jurors to keep off Twitter. Fazel then points out the passivity with which Twitter users can retain information using the service:

“This broadcasting is likely to have reached a juror, since Twitter does not require active pursuit of information, but rather, if a friend of the juror’s was following the ‘Stanford trial,’ the tweets might automatically show up on a juror’s Twitter account.”

True, a juror would not have to be actively searching for tweets about the Stanford trial or even following any of the reporters or news organizations reporting on it. A friend’s comment about what they heard or even a retweet would apear in their tweet stream.

The real question in all of this is how to judges control their juries when it comes to social media. Of course, jurors aren’t going to to be tweeting and reading tweets during the prosecution’s opening statements or anything, but what about when they leave the courtroom? Can someone on jury duty realistically be expected to abstain from Twitter and Facebook for the entire duration of the trial – it could be weeks or months.

And it’s not like the problem is new. Judges have had to worry about how jurors communicate with the press, and others outside of the courtroom since there was such a thing as a trial. But social media just makes it so much easier for a juror to become involved in questionable communications. You can only get so many phone calls or face-to-face interactions. With Twitter, millions and million of opinions are shot to your smartphone in seconds.

There’s definitely a precedent for this type of claim from Stanford and his lawyer. Back in December 2011, an Arkansas man’s death row conviction was thrown out because of the Twitter use of a juror. A new trial has been put on the docket for Erickson Dimas-Martinez, because Juror #2 in the trial was tweeting during the trial, after the judge specifically instructed against it.

What do you think? How serious a problem are tweeting jurors? Let us know what you think in the comments.

March 22, 2012
What Impact Does Facebook, Twitter Have On Court Juries?

To answer the question above; no, a majority of court cases aren’t tainted by the use of social media. According to a survey (PDF) which asked 508 judges various questions regarding juries and their use of social media services. It should be noted that the questionnaire was given to 952 judges, with only the 508 responding. So the results aren’t 100% clear, but still provide us an interesting glimpse into how judges respond to social media being used in cases they’re presiding over.

First, the most important question – Have Jurors Used Social Media During Trial or Deliberation? Interestingly enough, only 5.9% of judges questioned said they have dealt with the problem.

So, when the judges did discover social media being used – what were the juries’ platform of choice? (Note: Some of the Google+ answers were made by judges who thought the response was simply ‘Google’)

The most interesting question I thought, was asking in what way jurors used social media. I thought the number of people who tried to communicate with participants in the case was too high. Common sense, folks?

After discovering the use of social media, most of the judges didn’t play around and either cautioned the juror or threw them off the case entirely. Which was probably alright with them, because it would give them more time to message their friends on Facebook anyway.

The report goes on to list further data, and if you’re interested you can find it all in the PDF file linked above. I thought this report was interesting, and I was pleased that so little judges ran into social media problems. Some things just don’t need to be in your Facebook or Twitter feed.

January 25, 2012