We've discussed in the past how tweeting jurors
represent a new sort of challenge for courts, who haven't quite figured out what to make of the practice. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently overturned a murder conviction
and ordered a new trial, because one of the jurors was tweeting occasionally during the case. As in the past, I tend to think this is a pretty big overreaction. From the tweets quoted, it does not appear he actually discussed any specifics of the case at hand, but rather some rather general thoughts:
Mr Franco tweeted: "Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken... We each define the great line."
Other tweets sent included: "The coffee here sucks" and "Court. Day 5. here we go again".
I fail to see how those should lead to the end result being suspect in any way. It doesn't appear he discussed the case at all, but merely shared some of his general thoughts. It appears the court would prefer that he pretend he not even have those thoughts at all. How does that possibly make sense? Denying someone from mentioning what they're thinking doesn't stop them from thinking what they're thinking.