Juror Accused Of Using Twitter During Trial

[1cooldude]

A firm has launched legal action alleging a juror sent biased Twitter updates during a trial the company lost.


A juror is alleged to have posted messages to his Twitter account during a trial

Stoam Holdings, which makes building materials, lost a multi-million dollar case brought by two investors.

It has filed a motion asking for a new trial, claiming juror Johnathan Powell "tweeted" during the case and was not impartial.

He allegedly posted comments such as: "Oh and nobody buy Stoam. It's bad mojo and they'll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter."

Another post on his profile reads: "'So, Johnathan, what did you do today?' Oh, nothing really. I just gave away 12 million dollars of somebody else's money!"

Lawyer Drew Ledbetter argues the messages show Mr Powell was "predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience".

The motion on behalf of Russell Wright and his firm, Stoam Holdings, claims the juror sent eight Twitter updates during the trial.

Stoam had been fighting a case over whether investors' money was mishandled.

Mr Powell's profile appears to show updates on the media attention he has received since the motion was filed in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

"Twitter got me into this mess, maybe it can get me out. Do I need a lawyer?" one message states.

Mr Powell denies any wrongdoing and insists all his tweets were sent after the verdict.

Twitter is a micro-blogging site which allows users to send 140-character messages, or "tweets" from a phone or computer.


Source...

[Signa]

I know they don't want a jury talking to anyone about a trial so that they don't get an influenced opinion from outside of the court, but how could there be a biased influence if twitter is only one way communication? Or is there more to twitter than I realize? I know people can comment on twitters, but I'm assuming that if he's in a court room, he's not going to be reading his comments as much as just making them.

[ConfusedMime]

Where the hell does the popularity of twitter come from maybe its just me but it seems pretty damn pointless I don't understand all this twitter nonsense

[1cooldude]

I know they don't want a jury talking to anyone about a trial so that they don't get an influenced opinion from outside of the court, but how could there be a biased influence if twitter is only one way communication? Or is there more to twitter than I realize? I know people can comment on twitters, but I'm assuming that if he's in a court room, he's not going to be reading his comments as much as just making them.

this is a main reason why a judge would invoke that a jury be sequestered because of the outside opinion influence. Obviously the magnitude and the severity of the case would dictate that decision. Exchanging your opinion/information on twiitter is really no different.

[Signa]

But did he GET outside opinion? That is what I was wondering. From my limited experience with twitter, it seems the people who tweet only do such, and not get feedback from the people reading the twitters.

If he had read some one's comments based on what he said, then yeah, there's a problem.

If not, then they are making an issue out of nothing.:dunce:

[1cooldude]

I see your point.

[Potato]

When you log into twitter, you have a homepage which shows you updates of everyone you're following. If someone posted something about the trial, then this guy might have seen it.

If you're following people, you have an option to get text updates when they "tweet"... I bet you guys can fill in the rest of what COULD happen.

Also, you can send direct messages to other twitter-users.


It's not just one-way communication.

[mountain_rage]

Now call me crazy, but why is the juror allowed to possess a cellphone during a trial? Could there not be some rule forcing them to leave the phone with a secretary who would notify the juror only in case of emergency of a phone call?