Juror Didn't Disclose MySpace Friendship With Defendant... Because It Was Just MySpace

from the talk-about-damning-myspace dept

Here's a fun one. An appeals court in West Virginia has granted a new trial to a defendant because one of the jurors failed to disclose that she was a "friend" on MySpace with the defendant and had sent him a message during the trial. The message itself was mostly meaningless ("I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life..." etc. and even mentioned "Hey, I don't know you very well"), but the juror never bothered to mention that she knew the defendant at all, let alone well enough to be a MySpace connection. When asked why, she answered:
I knew in my heart that I didn't know him . . . I should have at least said that . . . he was on MySpace, which really [wasn't] important, I didn't think.
Ouch for MySpace. Either way, a new trial has been ordered, and yet again questions revolving around social media in the courtroom need to be tackled in court.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Rajio, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:01am

    Perspective

    I've got to side with the juror here, Just because they're 'friends' on myspace has no bearing of any kind of actual knowledge or relationship. Hell, I have 'friends' on social networks who ive never met, dont know anybody that I know, and we've never once spoken. I could meet someone today and find out that they're my 'friend' on some social network already and I wouldn't even know it.

    It absolutely does not establish a prior relationship at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    BBT, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:09am

    Re: Perspective

    That she contacted the defendant does, though. It may not be much of a relationship, but they're not supposed to have any relationship at all. Don't get confused by the terminology of "friend". Clearly, they weren't real friends. But they aren't even supposed to be acquaintances. They're supposed to be complete strangers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Perspective

    I don't think that's correct. To 'know' someone in a public sense is different from actually knowing or even being acquainted with one another.

    For instance, attorneys that belong to the same social clubs don't disqualify themselves in cases, and jurors aren't disqualified because they 'know' a celebrity or someone whose arrest and/or alleged crime was well publicized.

    Last, what do you think they do in smaller areas? Ship people in from the next county? :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Perspective

    True you can "know of someone" but you need to make this clear during the jury selection process. Even if it's just a dude you once danced with at a club.

    We are talking about jurors not Attorneys, they and judges pretty much all know each other.

    "Ship people to another county?"
    Yes, it's called change of venue in the event the defendant believes there are to many people that know him in a given area and would not be given a fair trail given his/her rep.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:46am

    It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    The issue isn't if she knew or didn't know the defendant, it's that she did not disclose the "relationship" or "contact" with the defendant.

    It's actually possible that during selection had she mentioned this that she would still have been selected. But the fact that she did not disclose this did not give them attorneys a chance to investigate the "relationship" further.

    little mikee m NEVER takes the time to actually mention any details that are relevant to the situation, only mentions what furthers his little agenda. little mikee m really needs to take a few courses in journalism and writing before he goes on his little rant about "saving journalism" his type of journalism really needs to be extinguished.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:50am

    Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    Sigh, I was all set to agree w/you after your first sentence. Then I rest the rest of your diatribe. I usually like the dissenting opinions around here, but seriously, go away....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:53am

    "During voir dire, she never acknowledged a connection with either the defendant or with other witnesses"

    It is not entirely clear (in the linked article) whether she was asked a direct question regarding any relationship with the defendant, isn't this standard court procedure?

    One would think that she should have made it known and then it would be up to the court to decide if she should sit on the jury.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Perspective

    If you live in a big area and know everyone, you might know 1,000 people, but if you live in a smaller area and know everyone, you might know 100. There's a lot more than 100 people in the county, and in those smaller population areas, there is still a good amount of land area to cover.

    Having enough knowledge of someone that you can reach out and talk to them like this juror did absolutely requires disclosure. The attorneys might ignore the relationship if they feel it's insignificant enough, but that's up to the attorneys, ya know, those that know the law...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:58am

    Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    "little mikee m NEVER ... his little agenda ... little mikee m really needs to ... his little rant ..."

    Michial Thompson, keepin it classy as usual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    AJ, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 7:00am

    Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    "The issue isn't if she knew or didn't know the defendant, it's that she did not disclose the "relationship" or "contact" with the defendant."

    Mike said "but the juror never bothered to mention that she knew the defendant at all"

    Did you bother to RTFA before you posted?

    "little mikee m NEVER takes the time to actually mention any details that are relevant to the situation, only mentions what furthers his little agenda. little mikee m really needs to take a few courses in journalism and writing before he goes on his little rant about "saving journalism" his type of journalism really needs to be extinguished."

    Do you realize how retarded you sound? I can't believe you posted with your real name. If your goal was to make yourself sound intelligent, you failed... badly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 7:22am

    ???

    WTF?? Please tell me people are really not this stupid...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Rajio, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Perspective

    Yes, I see your point but them contacting eachother may not indicate a relationship - It's likely that the juror thought nothing of 'looking up' the defendant (who, surprise, happened to be on their friends list!) and sending along a note. Of course that's against the rules, but I would just hesitate to infer any sort of relationship from such contact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    BBT, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Perspective

    Which is why I said it's important that she sent the defendant a message. It's possible that the message could be found to not disqualify her, but probably not.

    Merely being myspace "friends", on the other hand, would not be very relevant.

    The one thing we know for sure though- it wasn't her place to decide what was relevant and what wasn't. She should have revealed the relationship, however minor it was, and then let the court decide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 7:31am

    I know Jane Doe!

    Yeah she works at the convience store I goto all the time. I say hi to her and she smiles. I had no idea she was the one who killed that bus full of nuns! Why can't I be part of the jury in this case?

    If not for the corrispondence she might have had a leg to stand on. I agree, I have friended people on Facebook and myspace because we share some similar interest (some of which is an online MUD but thats not important). I don't talk to them person to person. we might share posts in an online forum but I don't know them. Once I send them a personal message (more than one in this case wishing them the blessing of god and so on) that leads me to believe she was more than just a random person she had similar interests with. She was incorrect in her opinnion of weather or not it was important. Sorry, I would tell the court "yeah I have them as a friend on my list in facebook but I have never talked with them on a personal level" and then let the court deside if it means you are disqualified or not. It isn't your opinion that matters but the court's. The information should have been disclosed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 8:42am

    Non Sequitur

    There was a Non Sequitur comic a while back with a main character in a bar celebrating the fact that he just hit 1,000 Facebook friends. The guy sitting next to him asks, "How many of these friends would help you move or loan you money if you needed it?", to which the first guy suddenly looks dejected.

    Pretty much sums up my view of things. Where I've "known" lots of people online in various online forums, and try to treat them respectfully, I barely consider any of those relationships "real" unless I've met them in person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Kilroy, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 8:56am

    Re: Non Sequitur

    .. and even when I have met them in person, I don't automagically consider them friends ....

    She probably should have resisted the temptation to contact him for the duration of the trial. And then she could have an argument ... "Oh was I linked to him in some less-than-meaningful way through a social media site. Well, that isn't saying much ..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    his type of journalism really needs to be extinguished.

    To pile onto the response to your puerile rant...

    Mike Masnick isn't a journalist nor does he claim to be, so your comment is irrelevent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Robin16 (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 10:25am

    My husband served on the jury of a high profile gang murder case in Los Angeles. He disclosed immediately that he knew one of the witnesses who had worked for a sub-contractor on one of his job sites. Nothing happened and my husband was elected as the jury foreman. No case there. This juror might be facing criminal charges herself for contacting the defendant.

    West Virginia Juror Instructions:

    http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/juryinfo/juryhdbk.htm

    Talking With Parties or Lawyers: Jurors should not talk with any of the parties, witnesses or lawyers during the trial. It may give the appearance that something unfair is happening.

    DUH!!!!!!!!!!

    From a West Virginia County

    Jurors get instructions.

    In almost all Virginia jury trials, however, the jury goes home at the end of each day and is simply told not to discuss the case with anyone nor to watch, read, or listen to news reports about the case. It is essential that you follow these instructions.

    During the trial my husband served on he didn't even tell me what the case was about! Why? Because of JURY INSTRUCTIONS not to discuss the case with anyone let alone sending the defendant ANY sort of message! It was during the holidays and took a one week break for Christmas, His mood was SOMBER. It wasn't til I heard the verdict announced on the news and my husband came home that he told me that was the trial he was serving on.

    Contacting the DEFENDANT in ANY way is a NO NO no matter how you look at it, MySpace or not! I can't believe anyone commenting here would say "poor juror". No, STUPID juror for going against jury instructions jeopardizing the case and costing the tax-payers money for a new trial!

    Here read the document. They weren't friends on MySpace UNTIL she sent him a message!

    http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/Spring10/35273.pdf

    Hey, I dont know you very well But I think you could use some advice! I havent been in your shoes for a long time but I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life. You might not understand why you are hurting right now but when you look back on it, it will make perfect sence. I know it is hard but just remember that God is perfect and has the most perfect plan for your life. Talk soon!5

    The jury CONVICTED him and then the guy gets a new trial because she's such a DUFUS she's sending him advice?!!!

    Ye Gads!

    5Juror Hyre told investigators that she wrote the message because she heard Appellant was going through a divorce and wanted to provide him with some advice. However, according to Appellant, he had been divorced for more than two years.

    Ye GADS!

    For his part, Appellant avers that he did not then recognize Juror Hyre to be the same “Amber” who wrote to him on MySpace. Apparently, “Amber” from MySpace did not include her last name and, according to Appellant, Juror Hyre looked very different from her photograph posted on the website. As indicated above, Appellant alerted the trial court to Juror Hyre’s MySpace message just following the verdict, having first learned that Juror Hyre and “Amber” were the same person only a short time earlier.6

    Ye GADS!

    “Mrs. Hyre was questioned about her friendship with Mr. Dellinger and she stated that she knew him and had spoke to him only to say ‘hi’ in passing and that they used to live in the same apartment complex together.” It is undisputed that, during voir dire, Juror Hyre never indicated to the trial court that she knew Appellant; had ever spoken to him “in passing”; or that they used to live in the same apartment complex.7

    YE GADS!!!! Sorry guys, but she didn't fess up to ever "knowing" him in any way during jury selection either. A NO NO!

    Does anyone here still feel sorry for this DUFUS who didn't do a single thing right as a juror?

    Sure hope not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Mojo, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 10:32am

    first of all, I'm surprised that TD readers are admitting to having friends on social sites they don't know and "didn't even realize" were on their list.

    really? It's one thing to not know them very well (a friend of a friend, etc), but why are you accepting friend requests from people you don't know AT ALL? Just trying to up your friend count? Sad.

    And if that were the case here, maybe I'd agree that, on a legal level, a MySpace friend really counts as a prior relationship... but the fact that SHE EMAILED HIM DURING THE TRIAL automatically should have the case thrown out. It's all kinds of improper for a juror and defendant to have ANY contact during a trial!!

    And her message would have spooked me and seems to infer she's made up her mind already... "god has a plan for you."

    Actually, it sounds like she's a Cylon to me. And I don't want no frakkin' skin job sitting on MY jury!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 10:55am

    Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    Funny that you take what is possibly the most agenda-less post in the whole Techdirt (does Mike agree or disagree that MySpace "doesn't matter"? He doesn't even say!) yet you manage to make a comment that "lil' mikee m has an agenda!".

    Seriously, if the post said "Mayor of Wisconsin was seen while walking into a grocery store" you'll scream "agenda!". And even if you don't, we all know you'll manage to say "lil' mikee m" at least twice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Coach George (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 10:55am

    Jury's first question from lawers

    1-Do you belong to any social networks, ie facespace, twitter, facebook etc. If so, what is your email address.
    2-Do you have the accused as a friend?
    3-Do you agree to have us search your contacts and friends?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 10:58am

    Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant

    Or, paraphrasing another poster :D

    "Blah, blah, little mikee m blah. Yada yada yada [completely baseless assertion] little mikee m, and ickety ackety oop [unrelenting bitterness]."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 11:04am

    Re:

    Welcome Humans!

    We have come to visit you in peace and with goodwill!

    Cylons may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    Cylons have seen things you people wouldn't believe.
    Cylons are Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With.
    Cylons have shiny metal posteriors which should not be bitten.

    And they have a plan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    KrozZ, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 3:42pm

    is just me or the whole world is going stupid??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 17th, 2010 @ 6:17pm

    Re:

    "is just me or the whole world is going stupid??"

    I doubt there has been a significant increase of stupid lately ... but now that communication tools are abundant, there has been an large increase in communicating stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jun 17th, 2010 @ 11:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Perspective

    You don't request (or get) a change of venue when everyone knows you. You get a change of venue when everyone knows you and is unable to be fair and impartial to you. So if your case was widely publicized, or you're biologically related to most of the jurors, you'd get a change in venue.

    But not because you know them. That's just silly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jun 18th, 2010 @ 12:03am

    Re:

    Umm... So I herd about this company called Zynga?

    The point is that plenty of people play social games, and they friend lots of people that they will never meet, and never be friends with because it's beneficial to the game.

    I'm not saying that her lack of disclosure is okay; I'm just saying that it's perfectly normal to have lots of 'friends' that aren't your friends.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Don, Jun 18th, 2010 @ 6:36am

    Haha, a way out of jury duty

    Next time I go on jury duty and I"m asked if I know the defendant, I'm going to say, "That's hard to tell. I have over 200+ friends on Facebook gathered primarily to boost my Mafia Wars gang. I'm also part of several other online communities for gaming purposes as well as other interests."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This