It happened in Arkansas as reported by Techdirt when a building company had a judgment against them for $12.6 million. That’s gonna leave a mark for sure. Unless of course one of your jurors tells his Tweeps the following:

“I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money”

“oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter”

Who knows what this person’s intent was and with the law that is often not even important. How it is being presented by the lawyers that represent the building company is that this juror was predisposed to a verdict that would “impress his audience”. I have to think that the leap from reaching a verdict to a predisposition to a verdict for Twitter recognition is a big one but anything is possible.

Let’s not focus on just one event like this though. In Philadelphia, there are accusations that a juror’s Twitter habit broke rules about disclosing deliberations. In a different twist there have been instances where jurors are accessing information on their phones during a trial that led to a mistrial in Florida. This wasn’t some minor case either; it was a federal drug trial.

So what’s the takeaway here? There are a million of them depending on your point of view. From where I sit though I have to say that if you can’t curb your desire to tell everyone about everything you are doing when it comes to a lawsuit you should probably have your social media membership card revoked. Even in a world where everyone knows everything about everyone else there are times that it’s not about us. We may think that what we are doing and thinking is important all the time but it’s not required that we tell everything all the time especially if other people are profoundly impacted by our narcissism. Think before you tweet!

Comments

You wouldn’t blog about it, tweet it or write on your wall about it. Would you?

No such worries for a woman juror in Burnley, UK, who ran a poll on Facebook asking her friends to vote on whether they thought the accused were guilty or not.

[…] The woman posted details of the child abduction and sex assault case on the website. Then she told friends: “I don’t know which way to go, so I’m holding a poll.”

Jurors are forbidden from discussing details of cases even with their closest family members. The woman was dismissed after a tip-off to Burnley Crown Court, Lancs. The trial continued with 11 jurors. It was thought she did not use privacy settings, meaning the Facebook posts could be read by anyone.

Last night a legal source said the juror could have been charged with contempt of court — and the trial scrapped. The expert added: “It defies belief. She obviously has no grasp of how the judicial process works in this country. She had been asking her mates what they thought — and some people came back with guilty verdicts.”

Amazing but true according to The Sun and lots of mainstream media reports, via BrandRepublic.

Comments