The Arkansas Supreme Court today threw out Erickson Dimas-Martinez’s murderconviction today, citing the fact that the tweeting juror failed to obey the judge’s instructions, and that tweeting does qualify as “communication.”
More
The full decision
November 18, 2011:
No, not a repeat from yesterday, though clearly we’re seeing a trend:
Before Erickson Dimas-Martinez’s murder trial last year, the judge instructed the jurors not to communicate with anybody — or post anything online — about the trial while it was in progress. Couldn’t get more specific than that, but somehow one juror failed to grasp the concept and tweeted during the trial.
She was caught doing it, the judge declined to remove her from the jury (or otherwise punish her), and Dimas-Martinez was eventually found guilty and sentenced to death.
Dimas-Martinez’s attorney is arguing before the Arkansas Supreme Court this week (Thursday’s oral arguments are here) that the judge acted improperly and her client’s conviction should be overturned. The attorney general’s office backs the judge’s decision, saying that the tweets only involved the juror’s own thoughts.
California, by the way, has passed a law calling for possible jail time for jurors who share their experience in real-time via social media.
In addition to displaying her poor judgement, the juror clearly demonstrated the ability to misinterpret basic instructions. Given how crucial bench-instruction is in a trial, I think she should have been removed from the jury pool at the time, and an alternate put in in her place. I fault the judge for not doing that, and I think the defense has a valid appeal.
That’s a very good point.
Look again at the Constitutional requirements:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If you want a juror struck during trial, you have to show that the juror is not impartial. (or lives outside of the district.)
It seems a bit extreme… but if a judge orders jurors not to tweet, and one does, I suppose he could cite for contempt of court, and that would disqualify her.
Striking a juror for contempt results in a mistrial, which means they have to start the whole thing again, which is expensive. Neither the prosecutor’s office nor the presiding judge like it when mistrials occur (defense lawyers, on the other hand, don’t mind because they get paid more to do two trials than one)
Of course in hindsight leaving the juror in and having the escalate to the Arkansas Supreme Court wasn’t much of a money-saver, huh?
On the contrary. Appeals judges are paid salary, and the cost is fixed.
There are plenty of costs other than the appeals court judges’ salaries. And really, how expensive would it be in comparison to start the trial over again? The municipality already owns and runs the building, the trial judge is on a fixed salary, nobody has to be transported to wherever the hell Arkansas’s capital is, and jurors are paid $10 a day and have to pay all their own expenses out of that.
But, what about the right of freedom of expression?? First they bar people from Tweeting during a trial, next they jail people for speaking out against altering Star Wars.
Your logic is unassailable.
I find that bit about ‘public’ interesting. Generally, it’s been considered sufficient to allow people into the courtroom. Now I find myself wondering why cameras are barred.
As I see it, the best reason to bar blogging, tweeting, etc., is to prevent contaminating the jury pool for a prospective second trial, if the first ends in a mistrial. (Of course, newspaper and television reports of the current trial have that same effect.) Another reason is to prevent responses to the blogs, tweets, etc., reaching the juror and contaminating the current trial.
In cases like this one, I’d be inclined to give the offending juror thirty days, for contempt of court, but not accuse or sentence until the completion of the trial. (Knowing that I had been held in contempt would affect my impartiality, I’d wager.)
As per a previous thread – there is no reference to Freedom of Expression in the US Constitution. And as both Bill and James point out, the woman in question may have displayed poor judgement and been obtuse to the point of idiocy – she did not display any bias – one way or the other. The lawyer’s challenge should be thrown out… and as Lost in A**2 suggests, the woman punished “after the trial”.
As an avid user of social media I can tell you the communication is not one way. You tweet something and you check for replies, mentions, retweets, etc. The twitter tools I’ve seen don’t even let you do “outward only” communications – there is always and inward stream. I suppose it is possible she found some obscure twitter client that allowed her to post only and not to read, but I consider that unlikely.
Even blogs such as this invite comments, and who is not going to read the comments made on their blog?
After reading the transcript of the conversation between the juror and judge, all I have to say is: if I ever find myself being tried by a jury of my peers, I’m going to demand they have IQ tests first.
Wow.