RSS
Suggestion: Don't Text Message Your Boss While On The Witness Stand
from the that-would-be-a-mistrial dept
We recently wrote about a trial where there were concerns that a jury member was sending Twitter messages during the trial, but that's nothing compared to text messaging while on the witness stand. Yes, apparently a guy who was being questioned as a witness, used a break in the action (as the judge spoke to the lawyers in the case) to text message with his boss, who was also in the court room and at the plaintiff table. After being alerted to this by a "courtroom spectator," the judge declared a mistrial:
"Let me be really frank about this," the judge said. "I never had this happen before. This is completely outrageous, absolutely outrageous."These stories of technology in the courtroom seem to be coming up more and more frequently. It seems as though very few people have really thought through the implications of the many channels of communication that every individual now has with them, and how that changes common assumptions about how people can and will communicate, even in "constrained" areas.
Toledano responded, "It was on a break."
Silverman shot back: "It doesn't matter. You are communicating about the case and the subject matter of the case with a witness who is currently under oath and before the jury,"
Toledano said, "I'm sorry, after we took the break, it's not in the middle."
The judge explained himself again.
"It's a problem on your communicating with the witness about his testimony whether it's before the break, after the break and during the break while he's testifying," he said. "This is outrageous."
I have an app...
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
How My First Game Made $28,623
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
Geography Of The App Economy
I have a business...
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the big deal?
I think its disgusting that plaintiffs, jury's, Lawyers, ect, are not allowed COMPLETE information about anything they want to know about in order to make in informed decision - instead they are only allowed pre-chewed "Fit for your eye's information".
Let everyone have a cell phone, laptop, broadband, and access to Lexis Nexis while in a courtroom.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
of being a complete idiot when considering where it is appropriate to use the tech.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes that's maybe going too far...
But idiots are idiots and we live in a society where "Caution contents may be hot" stickers are on the side of coffee cups!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not too switf...
From the article, this is not the first time the plaintiff has been caught doing this either. Sounds like someone needs to address this issue with him.
As to the subject of technology in the courtroom, I believe you have to allow cell phones for non-participants, but have a solution for jurors, witnesses, plaintiffs and defendants. Perhaps something as simple as depositing them with the bailiff at the beginning of the day and retrieving at the end. Of course, to handle "emergency contact" issues, you'd probably have to have a dedicated phone in each court (or something similar). I do agree that a plan of some kind does need to be created and implemented soon.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not too switf...
If I get more time today, (and no one else has done it) I'll address the very big problem raised by AC of allowing access to any/all information during a proceeding.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not too switf...
Please do, MiamiMark.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, Rachel didn't respond to that one either.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
ah, excellent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What difference does it make?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What difference does it make?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Make them pay?
I don't understand why, if the they aren't allowed to use them, they're still allowed to carry them into the building...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Can he even have the phone?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A courtroom IS a "sanctified" place, as it should be. It's a place where people liberties get taken away, with very specific rules on how to do that. This kind of behavior is indeed an incredible violation of everything the court stands for. I think both parties should have gotten worse for it. In a courtroom, the judge IS god, what (s)he says goes. Yes there's bad judges, but (from this story) not this one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
If only...
Few need to though, just the law & policy makers would be enough!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Nursery stuff...
This is something a 6 year old would come out with. And about as transparently blatant too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment