Mormon Murder Case Submitted to Jury

After 4-months of proofs, the capital murder case against Jodi Arias has [finally] been submitted to the jury for deliberation and a verdict.  Although the murder of Travis Alexander occurred in 2008, the jury was not empaneled until January 2, 2013.

In an interesting preliminary decision, the presiding judge elected not to sequester the jury.  This means that, although they were provided with a daily admonishment not to discuss the case with anyone outside the courthouse, jurors were left to their own devices when faced with the saturation-media coverage of this trial.

We here at the Law Blogger have posted on the topic of social media and the jury pool, and the problems presented by jurors that seek information about their case outside the courtroom.  In such high-profile cases, the jurors realize they are a part of our lurid true-crime history. 

These folks thus become high-profile jurors.  Many hire attorneys or agents after the trial to discuss lucrative media appearances; even book deals. 

Being in the profession of defending the accused, we wonder over here at the Law Blogger how many of the jurors assigned to this case have succumbed to the temptation of tuning into the media coverage of their case.  How many jurors have Googled some of the witnesses, particularly the experts, that testified in this case?

If any such forays come to light [and let's not forget that every Internet user's keystroke is recorded] this defendant will have at least one good appellate issue.  In our opinion, Judge Sherry Stephens should have sequestered this jury or at least obtained their known IP addresses, and she should have concluded the trial in February, not May.

Such cases give our media-rich culture the opportunity to marinate in the art of lawyering.  Some camps favor the prosecutor; others relish the art of defending the accused.

One thing is for sure -these high profile murder trials cement our collective national fixation with sex, religion and violence.  Not that each of us are latent dysfunctional bi-polar borderline personality stalkers.  Yet, as a nation, we just love the spectacle of the public trial; especially a capital murder trial.  Such trials have taken the place of a public execution in the town square.

Even with an inevitable jury conviction of some degree of homicide, unfortunately Ms. Arias will be with us for decades.  We here at this blog can already see the appeals beginning to form...

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: bi-polar,borderline personality disorder,capital murder,criminal defense lawyer,Jodi Arias,Judge Sherry Stephens,juror,jury trial,Mormon,murder,social media,stalker,Travas Alexander

Social Media Not Mixing with Jury Trials

It took some time, but now the cases are starting to pile-up.  This week's WSJ treats us to a summary of recent "social media" eruptions in the jury trial context.

The basic problem: a jury trial is conducted in accord with the applicable rules of evidence, court rules, and statutes.  When jurors log onto the Internet to obtain additional information [about the parties to the suit, the lawyers, or the judge], or to comment, they are exposed to data and opinion beyond the scope of the applicable rules.  This can and does affect the outcome of a trial.

The case highlighted in the WSJ was a 2010 murder conviction overturned, in part, because a juror ignored the admonishment of the judge, and tweeted the jury's verdict to the public prior to it being read in court.  Now, the defendant will stand trial again this summer.

In other courtrooms, despite explicit instruction from the trial judge that jurors must not discuss the case among themselves until the proofs are complete and they are formally deliberating, jurors have been known to exchange contacts and begin texting one another.

A Florida juror recently spent 3-days in jail for "friending" a defendant on Facebook so he could either get a date with the woman, or get out of jury duty.

A case in the California appellate courts hinges on whether a juror in a case must now disclose his social media activity to defense attorneys in a gang-beating case so the attorneys can determine whether to challenge their client's conviction based on the juror's social media activity.

Judges have a range of options when juror misconduct mars an ongoing trial.  Those options include: punishing the juror for contempt (i.e. jail or a fine); removing the objectionable person from the jury (there is always at least one alternate); and declaring a mistrial and starting the trial over.

The WSJ article cites to a potential test case: the Drew Peterson case in Illinois.  In that case, defense attorney Joel Brodsky is considering ways to prevent jurors from acquiring information about the case outside the courtroom.  One idea under consideration is for the jurors to disclose their IP addresses and social media handles so they can be monitored.  Along these lines, technicians are suggesting the installation of cookies so that if a juror accesses the Internet about the case in any way, the juror's foray is reported to the trial judge.

Can the centuries-old jury trial system withstand such developments?  Is there any effective way to prevent seated jurors from accessing the media about the case to which they have been entrusted?

As litigators, we here at the Law Blogger realize this truly is a "Brave New World".  When you ramp-up for a trial, and focus on the scope of the evidentiary issues in the case, it is very unsettling to think that, with a few points and clicks, a juror can unearth a veritable treasure trove of [inadmissible] information about you, your client, or your case. 

In almost every case, such additional information will sway the juror's opinion and somehow affect the outcome.  Turning a trial into a popularity contest is not a fair way to administer justice.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Attorney Joel Brodsky,Drew Peterson,Google,internet,juror,jury trial,law blog,lawyer