WebProNews

Tag: jurors

  • John Goodman Trial On Shaky Ground. New Jury Needed?

    The retrial of polo mogul John Goodman is demonstrating that in the 21st century, there’s no such thing as an entirely ignorant jury.

    Aside from being able to quickly find out about 51-year-old Goodman via Google, one can just as easily learn crucial details about the previous trial.

    This is what happened with Travis Van Vliet. The 23-year-old thought nothing of looking up the case during lunch and learning the details of the retrial.

    While this alone would probably make him an undesirable juror, Vliet then did something unthinkable: He began to share what he found out with another potential juror!

    The overriding point of jury selection for the Goodman trial was to select unbiased individuals who didn’t know about the previous trial OR his conviction.

    Judge Jeffrey Colbath found the young man to be in contempt of court and had him escorted from the courtroom in handcuffs.

    It’s not a good sign for prosecutors.

    It was juror misconduct which led to a retrial for the multimillionaire.

    It’s also why this case will see the selected jurors sequestered in West Palm Beach, Fla. for four weeks.

    Still, Vliet’s actions raise serious questions about how uninformed a jury can be about John Goodman and the previous trial.

    Despite lingering concerns, 10 individuals were selected (six jurors and four alternates) for the trial.

    If it somehow emerges that some of the jurors were indeed aware of the previous trial and Goodman’s conviction, it may yet again cause problems for Florida prosecutors.

    John Goodman is originally from Texas and the heir to an air conditioning business empire. He used his money to rebuild the Wellington, Fla. polo community, a fact for which he’s gained worldwide recognition.

    In 2010, Goodman was driving while intoxicated when he struck the car of 23-year-old engineering graduate Scott Wilson. Wilson’s car flipped upside down into a canal, which caused him to drown.

    Prosecutors claimed that Goodman fled the scene of the accident and didn’t call 911 until nearly an hour later.

    He was originally convicted on the DUI manslaughter charge in 2012, but his lawyers found errors that resulted in his old conviction and 16 year sentence being thrown out.

    The John Goodman retrial will be streamed live on Saturday by WPTV.

  • Juror Can’t Stop Texting During Trial, Promptly Jailed

    A 26-year-old juror in a Salem, Oregon, armed robbery case has been sentenced to serve two days in jail after he was caught texting in court.

    Benjamin Kohler was charged with contempt after authorities say he was using his mobile device to text after being given explicit instructions to stay off it.

    The judge in the trial, Dennis Graves, instructed the entire jury that cell phone use during court was prohibited. He apparently issued the instructions multiple times.

    But Kohler either didn’t hear or didn’t care. During the testimony of a Salem police officer, a video recording was played in the courtroom. That’s when the district attorney noticed a dim light emanating from Kohler’s area.

    The proceeding were stopped and the courtroom was emptied. Apparently, Kohler had no explanation for his texting.

    “The duty to serve as a juror must be taken very seriously. Every juror has the responsibility to devote his entire attention to the witnesses and evidence being presented. In this case, Mr. Kohler failed to meet his obligations and failed to honor the direction of this court. My hope is that he will use his time in jail to reflect upon his behavior,” said the judge.

    Hopefully. If you can’t put your phone down for a few minutes, let’s say, while you’re eating – you may get soup on your device. But if you can’t put your phone down for a few minutes during a trial – you may miss something that could be the difference between someone’s freedom and incarceration. Put the phone down, dude. Nothing you’re texting about is that important, I assure you.

    The too-technologically-connected juror has been an ever-increasing problem over the past few years. Just this week, we told you that a juror in the U.K. faces contempt charges after he made Facebook postings about wanting to “fuck up a pedophile.” In the past, we’ve even seen death row convictions overturned due to social media-using jurors.

    [Madison County Sheriff’s Office via Wired]

  • Juror Faces Contempt After Posting He Wanted to ‘F*ck Up a Pedophile’ on Facebook

    Juror Faces Contempt After Posting He Wanted to ‘F*ck Up a Pedophile’ on Facebook

    With the proliferation of social media use, courts are having a harder time keeping jurors from making public postings about trials in which they’re currently involved. The latest example of this comes from the U.K., where a suspended juror now faces contempt of court charges.

    According to The Guardian, a juror in the case of a now-convicted sex-offender will face prosecution at the hands of the Attorney General for “an act likely to interfere with the due administration of justice.”

    In December of 2012, Kasim Davey was dismissed from the trial of Adam Kephalas in the Wood Green crown court of London. He was let go after making a Facebook post in which he claimed that the trial was giving him the chance to do something he’d always wanted to do: “Fuck up a paedophile.”

    “Woooow I wasn’t expecting to be in a jury Deciding a paedophile’s fate, I’ve always wanted to Fuck up a paedophile & now I’m within the law!” he posted.

    Although he initially denied ever posting the status, Davey was removed. Kephalas was eventually convicted and given a suspended year-long prison sentence. Today, the Attorney General was given the go ahead to prosecute Davey.

    Keeping jurors off of social media it an issue that transcends geography. In the U.S., we’ve seen numerous cases of Twitter-happy jurors, some even affecting the outcome of major trials. Back in December, an Arkansas man’s death row conviction was overturned essentially because one juror couldn’t keep off Twitter. The juror was found to have been tweeting during court recesses.

  • Tweeting Juror Is One Man’s Ticket Off Death Row

    An Arkansas man’s death row conviction has been overturned essentially because one juror couldn’t keep away from Twitter.

    The Arkansas state Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s decision that the juror’s tweets in question do not constitute grounds for a new trial. The Supreme Court is suggesting that Erickson Dimas-Martinez be given a brand new trial because Juror #2 decided to post Christian metalcore lyrics on Twitter.

    The allegation of juror misconduct related to the juror tweeting during the trial was also raised in a motion for new trial but denied by the circuit court. The State counters that Appellant did not preserve an objection to the sleeping juror and cannot demonstrate prejudice with regard to the twittering juror as the juror never tweeted specifics about the case. Because we conclude that the one juror sleeping and a second juror tweeting constituted juror misconduct, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

    As you can see above, the tweeting juror was not the only problem with the trial. There was also allegations that one juror was sleeping through jury deliberations. While this is an obvious no-no, the Twitter activity raises interesting new questions for our legal system.

    Mainly, what does social media mean for “public discussion?” What are those involved in a trial allowed to express via social media? According to this Supreme Court, pretty much next to nothing.

    According to the Supreme Court decision, Juror #2 tweeted this during the noon recess on the day evidence was submitted in the sentencing phase:

    Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken. We each define the great line.

    When asked about the nature of the tweet, Juror #2 explained that it was part of an album title from the Christian metalcore band Underoath.

    Other tweets made during the trial process included “the coffee here sucks,” and “Court. Day 5. here we go again.” During the actual jury deliberations in the sentencing phase, he also tweeted “It’s over,” nearly an hour before the jury had officially announced their sentence recommendations.

    Although the lower court found that the tweets were not a “material breach of the instruction or of his oath,” (the jury was instructed to refrain from electronic communications about the trial) the Supreme Court decided that the tweets were far from innocuous.

    Because of the very nature of Twitter as an on online social media site, Juror 2’s tweets about the trial were very much public discussions. 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.

    And so Erickson Dimas-Martinez, who was convicted of murdering a teenager after a party in 2010, is off death row and awaiting a new trial – mostly because one guy couldn’t stay off Twitter for a few days.

    Do you agree that tweeting and posting to Facebook amounts to public discussions of court proceedings, and should therefore be grounds for a mistrial? Let us know in the comments.

    Arkansas