Trial Delayed until at least January

[gracielee]

This just in from WRAL news:

Breaking News: A juror in the Jason Young murder trial has been dismissed after he was overheard talking about the case at a restaurant. The judge said he plans to charge the juror with contempt of court. This marks the second juror who was dismissed after talking about the case. A third person, who was in the jury pool, was also dismissed for talking about the case online.
Keep up with breaking news at http://www.wral.com/

I just saw this on Facebook. I'm losing faith in the jury system. After the CA verdict in Fla., and the careless chatter by the prospective jurors in this case I'm truly thinking the jury system as we know it, for high profile cases is simply not working anymore. :furious:

 

[otto]

This just in from WRAL news:

Breaking News: A juror in the Jason Young murder trial has been dismissed after he was overheard talking about the case at a restaurant. The judge said he plans to charge the juror with contempt of court. This marks the second juror who was dismissed after talking about the case. A third person, who was in the jury pool, was also dismissed for talking about the case online.
Keep up with breaking news at http://www.wral.com/

What a mess! It might be time for the US to borrow some laws from the UK or some other EU countries, where nothing about the case is released until trial and specific information about the case is not released until after a verdict. It seems that this problem will only get worse, as social media will only become more popular.

 

[Candy_Pickletoes]

This just in from WRAL news:

Breaking News: A juror in the Jason Young murder trial has been dismissed after he was overheard talking about the case at a restaurant. The judge said he plans to charge the juror with contempt of court. This marks the second juror who was dismissed after talking about the case. A third person, who was in the jury pool, was also dismissed for talking about the case online.
Keep up with breaking news at http://www.wral.com/

That is absolutely infuriating. I can't believe ADULTS act like they do. A man is on trial and could go to jail for the rest of his life. A woman and baby are dead. Justice must be served here (regardless of whether or not I agree with the final verdict) and the people that are being charged with this very, very serious task are treating it like it is a joke. It seems more and more people don't have respect for a court order.

Who was watching during jury selection in the Anthony trial? More than one person was made an example of during that process and I think anyone and everyone who stands in the way of justice being served in this case needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Spend a few days/weeks/months in the slammer and see what a great idea it was to discuss a case when you've been ordered by a judge not to.

RAWR!!!!! :furious:

 

[otto]

That is absolutely infuriating. I can't believe ADULTS act like they do. A man is on trial and could go to jail for the rest of his life. A woman and baby are dead. Justice must be served here (regardless of whether or not I agree with the final verdict) and the people that are being charged with this very, very serious task are treating it like it is a joke. It seems more and more people don't have respect for a court order.

Who was watching during jury selection in the Anthony trial? More than one person was made an example of during that process and I think anyone and everyone who stands in the way of justice being served in this case needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Spend a few days/weeks/months in the slammer and see what a great idea it was to discuss a case when you've been ordered by a judge not to.

RAWR!!!!! :furious:

I wonder if people have lost faith in the system ... with 190 cases being recently found to have false or misleading evidence. It seems evident that the forensic lab was giving the prosecution exactly what they wanted in order to secure those 190 wrongful convictions, so it's hard to believe that investigators and prosecutors weren't somehow aware of what was going on. We know that at times, evidence exonerated suspects but that evidence was withheld.

Could people be concerned about whether they can believe anything they hear? We know that the prosecution attempted to argue that DNA comparisons with a 3 allele match was enough to implicate the suspect ... complete with the dramatic cutting of the envelope containing a random rock that was found outside a hotel entrance. That, in itself, would leave me suspcious of the prosecution evidence.

 

[MyBelle]

What a mess! It might be time for the US to borrow some laws from the UK or some other EU countries, where nothing about the case is released until trial and specific information about the case is not released until after a verdict. It seems that this problem will only get worse, as social media will only become more popular.

I think prosecuting the wrong-doers will do the trick. Those that don't play by the rules deserve consequences. Look at the incredible effort some posters expend trying to convict defendants in the court of public opinion but also the damage to members of their families.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

At least they now recognize the need for more than 3 alt jurors. With this craziness they need another dozen in the wings.

 

[otto]

I think prosecuting the wrong-doers will do the trick. Those that don't play by the rules deserve consequences. Look at the incredible effort some posters expend trying to convict defendants in the court of public opinion but also the damage to members of their families.

JMO

Absolutely! It seems that curiosity bleeds too far at times and not only are the personal lives of friends and family of accused persons laid bare, but an accused person can lose friends, career and educational opportunities as a result of public speculations regarding the possibility of guilt. Today, jurors lives are also laid bare, particularly if they do not deliver the popular verdict. Jurors should retain their anonymity for as long as possible ... it seems foolish not to. Talking about their juror role in a public restaurant or on a forum is a pretty big mistake.

Some EU countries forbid the release of anything more than a first name until after a verdict in order to protect all innocent parties and to respect the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

 

[otto]

At least they now recognize the need for more than 3 alt jurors. With this craziness they need another dozen in the wings.

The judge has decided that four alternates are needed.

 

[MyBelle]

Absolutely! It seems that curiosity bleeds too far at times and not only are the personal lives of friends and family of accused persons laid bare, but an accused person can lose friends, career and educational opportunities as a result of public speculations regarding the possibility of guilt. Today, jurors lives are also laid bare, particularly if they do not deliver the popular verdict. Jurors should retain their anonymity for as long as possible ... it seems foolish not to. Talking about their juror role in a public restaurant or on a forum is a pretty big mistake.

Some EU countries forbid the release of anything more than a first name until after a verdict in order to protect all innocent parties and to respect the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

I agree with you. This case is showing a lot of warts in the system that are unfair to all, including the victim and her surviving child. I think the fish is rotten from the head down and prosecutors and law enforcement are to blame for a lot of it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

seems to be a growing problem:

In the past month alone, an Arkansas murder conviction was overturned because a juror was tweeting about the trial. A California juror was dismissed after court officials discovered that she had posted extensively about a trial and about her fellow jurors on her Facebook page.

Before that, five jurors "friended" one another on Facebook during the embezzlement trial of a former Baltimore mayor — leading to motions to set aside their verdict. Another Maryland court overturned a first-degree murder conviction after a juror researched a scientific term on Wikipedia.

In 2009, at least 21 jury verdicts were overturned because of jurors' online, out-of-line conduct, a national Reuters Legal study found. Likewise, about 30 of 500 federal judges surveyed said they have had to deal with Facebook-posting or Google-searching jurors.



http://www.omaha.com/article/20120130/NEWS97/701309929

 

[Madeleine74]

Used to just be the press who created and published the stories. Information getting out isn't a new phenomenon. Go back 50 years or better yet 100 or 200 years.

With the Internet, social media, blog platforms and a variety of ways to self-publish, everyone who has a computer or cell phone and access to the Internet is a reporter/publisher/whatever. The information may not be very accurate, but it is plentiful and immediate and everyone likes to discuss...even the very people who are disgusted by those who discuss...they discuss too. That's not a new thing at all.

 

[NCEast]

What a mess! It might be time for the US to borrow some laws from the UK or some other EU countries, where nothing about the case is released until trial and specific information about the case is not released until after a verdict. It seems that this problem will only get worse, as social media will only become more popular.

I think a permanent gag order on every case would nearly kill me....but I agree that it's certainly turning into a problem. If the average John/Jane Doe who is called for jury duty would consider the gravity of their duty and grasp that perhaps somebody's chance to live or not is in their hands they would do a better job and obey the judges orders. At times I don't think they actually understand how important being a juror is--even in a simple case.

 

[NCEast]

seems to be a growing problem:

In the past month alone, an Arkansas murder conviction was overturned because a juror was tweeting about the trial. A California juror was dismissed after court officials discovered that she had posted extensively about a trial and about her fellow jurors on her Facebook page.

Before that, five jurors "friended" one another on Facebook during the embezzlement trial of a former Baltimore mayor — leading to motions to set aside their verdict. Another Maryland court overturned a first-degree murder conviction after a juror researched a scientific term on Wikipedia.

In 2009, at least 21 jury verdicts were overturned because of jurors' online, out-of-line conduct, a national Reuters Legal study found. Likewise, about 30 of 500 federal judges surveyed said they have had to deal with Facebook-posting or Google-searching jurors.



http://www.omaha.com/article/20120130/NEWS97/701309929

Good grief, this is crazy. Adults simply should know better.

 

[NCEast]

Used to just be the press who created and published the stories. Information getting out isn't a new phenomenon. Go back 50 years or better yet 100 or 200 years.

With the Internet, social media, blog platforms and a variety of ways to self-publish, everyone who has a computer or cell phone and access to the Internet is a reporter/publisher/whatever. The information may not be very accurate, but it is plentiful and immediate and everyone likes to discuss...even the very people who are disgusted by those who discuss...they discuss too. That's not a new thing at all.

You're right. And living in the 21st century presents so many more opportunities for info to get out--and in the blink of an eye. It wouldn't take but making sequestering an automatic part of jury duty to reduce some of the problem. I would hate to be a sequestered juror on any case but if people can't learn to obey the rules this may be an option. Or professional juries, I have heard that referred to many times in the past decade or so. I don't really know how I feel about that except I would want them to have relatively high IQs if nothing else.
It's turning into a mess and I pray the man in this case who was 'caught' today is fined and has to spend a night or two in jail.

 

[otto]

I think a permanent gag order on every case would nearly kill me....but I agree that it's certainly turning into a problem. If the average John/Jane Doe who is called for jury duty would consider the gravity of their duty and grasp that perhaps somebody's chance to live or not is in their hands they would do a better job and obey the judges orders. At times I don't think they actually understand how important being a juror is--even in a simple case.

Either that, or jurors are thinking that jury duty makes them something of an instant celebrity. That's a big deal for people that live regular, quiet lives. Suddenly they are part of some nationally televised murdertainment program where real lives are at stake and where they can be thrust into the spotlight regardless of their verdict. Maybe more jurors should speak up and state that they cannot remain silent, or that they would find the burden of juror celebrity intrusive in their lives.

 

[Madeleine74]

Gag orders would affect the principals in the case but would not stop the general discussion and gossip. Our first amendment makes it improbable that a blackout of info would or could ever occur. Frankly, if a juror is so boneheaded and discusses a case when the judge specifically ordered him/them not to, a gag order isn't going to mean anything. The only thing that gets through to someone who refuses to follow the law or the judge's orders, is their loss of freedom for some period of time.

 

[otto]

Gag orders would affect the principals in the case but would not stop the general discussion and gossip. And frankly, if a juror is so boneheaded and discusses a case when the judge specifically ordered him/them not to, a gag order isn't going to mean anything.

If the trial was not televised, there were no wireless connections, cellphones were checked at the door and curiosity seekers were turned away at the door, the atmosphere of the trial would be much healthier ... in my opinion.

 

[NCEast]

Either that, or jurors are thinking that jury duty makes them something of an instant celebrity. That's a big deal for people that live regular, quiet lives. Suddenly they are part of some nationally televised murdertainment program where real lives are at stake and where they can be thrust into the spotlight regardless of their verdict. Maybe more jurors should speak up and state that they cannot remain silent, or that they would find the burden of juror celebrity intrusive in their lives.

I will never understand how the jurors in the CA trial in FL came to their decisions but I do understand why they wanted to remain anonymous....most especially after their abject verdict. In many of the high profile cases, jurors are hounded by the media regardless if their verdicts were popular with the masses or not. It would appear that some of the questioning during jury selection for all cases need to be overhauled to include a broader reach about social media. Judge BP in the CA case was dead on in his questioning of each potential juror right down to asking them if they had a Facebook page. He sure was on top of things, lord I love that man.

 

[NCEast]

If the trial was not televised, there were no wireless connections, cellphones were checked at the door and curiosity seekers were turned away at the door, the atmosphere of the trial would be much healthier ... in my opinion.

Maybe, maybe not. I can't see how curiosity seeker could be turned away if it's a public trail. I think we all remember how livid Judge PG was in the CB trial when he found out that folks were texting during that trial. He went off,,,,it must have been the first time he sat on a case in which social media became an issue. As I said in an earlier post, the vetting process of potential jurors will have to be expanded to include all of the possible methods of texting, etc. I would hate like crazy for a guilty person to get off due to some idiot leaking info. Even a spectator.

 

[MyBelle]

Maybe, maybe not. I can't see how curiosity seeker could be turned away if it's a public trail. I think we all remember how livid Judge PG was in the CB trial when he found out that folks were texting during that trial. He went off,,,,it must have been the first time he sat on a case in which social media became an issue. As I said in an earlier post, the vetting process of potential jurors will have to be expanded to include all of the possible methods of texting, etc. I would hate like crazy for a guilty person to get off due to some idiot leaking info. Even a spectator.

A courtroom is public but the Judge can still control who enters it.

Considering the electronic tracks with social media, it would not be difficult for a Judge to find out who is posting what.

JMO