Patterico's Pontifications

11/17/2007

Blurring the Line between the Internet and Real Life

Filed under: Blogging Matters,General,Law — DRJ @ 2:56 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

An ongoing high-profile murder trial in Houston has developed an interesting complication that concerns a comment left on a Houston Chronicle blog.

The defendant in the case is David Mark Temple, a former high school football coach who was accused of killing his pregnant wife Belinda. Temple was found guilty on Thursday by a Houston jury, about 7 hours after a comment was left on a Houston Chronicle blog saying that a juror told the commenter the verdict would be announced later that day:

“Attorneys for a former high school football coach convicted in the shooting death of his pregnant wife want the Houston Chronicle to identify a reader who posted a comment about the case on the newspaper’s Web site. The thread, posted in the “reader comments” section, suggests that the juror spoke about the deliberations while the trial was still ongoing.

David Mark Temple’s attorneys issued a subpoena Friday calling for the Chronicle to appear in court Monday, with registration information the reader may have given the newspaper.

The comment was posted around 9 a.m. Thursday, about seven hours before a jury found David Mark Temple, 39, guilty of shooting Belinda Tracie Temple in January 1999. Belinda Temple, a special education teacher at Katy High School, was eight months pregnant.”

The Houston Chronicle has not decided how it will respond to the defense subpoena. As for the comment itself, the content was vague but the suggestion that the juror had talked about the case outside the jury room could be a big problem:

“In the posting, the reader, who goes by the screen name “REFster,” wrote: “Psst … My boss is on the jury. Thinks they’ll have a verdict this afternoon.” After another reader asked REFster if he knew how his boss would vote on the verdict, REFster replied: “He is playing it very close to the vest. I’m sorry to say at this point, I got nada.”

The last comment by REFster was posted about 6 p.m. Thursday. About 2,000 comments were posted about the Temple case.

Jurors are not allowed to talk about a case outside the jury room while a trial is underway, and are instructed not to discuss the case with their spouses, family members or friends. They are also ordered to avoid any media reports. Jury deliberations are also supposed to remain confidential until a trial has ended.”

The jury is scheduled to reconvene for the punishment phase on Monday. In the meantime, I predict the lawyers in this case and for the Houston Chronicle won’t be getting much sleep.

— DRJ

13 Responses to “Blurring the Line between the Internet and Real Life”

  1. I don’t see any line between the internet and “real life” in theory or practice. It’s been a philosophy of mine for a while, not least of which because I found the woman I love so much in real life I plan on marrying her and emigrating to a country I never thought I would even like on the internet. But I digress.

    The internet is a communication tool. Like a telegraph, telephone, postal mail delivery system, etc. But, in fact, it is even MORE of a communication tool than all of these and includes very interactive elements like blogs which maintain a permanent record of all communications. It can even encompass such things as direct video and audio links — very realistic indeed.

    To say the internet isn’t “real life” is to say a penned letter doesn’t count. And the legal system couldn’t have that, now could it?

    Likewise, anyone is responsible for what they do online as elsewhere and this juror royally f’d up. The consequences must be the same as if they juror violated the court’s order in real life because, the juror did.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. Every once in a while I get suckered into reading these accounts of jury duty in high profile cases written by jurors. In everyone of them the jurors have looked at newspapers, watched television or listened to radio, and winked and/or talked with defense counsel in the hallways/elevators. But, because the defendants were acquitted nothing happens to the juror(s).

    dave (527e4d)

  3. There is a line…and that juror crossed it.

    Paul (ec9716)

  4. Christoph,

    I think many people feel like what they do on the internet isn’t subject to the same rules as real life. For instance, they feel free to use foul language they wouldn’t use with strangers in a face-to-face situation. Or they indulge in rude and insulting commentary that they probably wouldn’t use in everyday conversation. The feeling of anonymity gives them a false assurance they can speak freely.

    Of course, maybe this commenter made everything up. If not, maybe he told everyone he knew what his boss said. However, unlike with personal conversations, we know about this because he put it on the internet and now it’s a very real problem for everyone.

    DRJ (42ad54)

  5. What a great tactic. The side that thinks it is going to lose drops an incriminating comment into a blog, or – to protect anonymity – has someone else do it for them, and presto: a mistrial.

    great unknown (c36902)

  6. Assuming it is true, all it does is indicated the juror thought they might have a verdict and nothing else. How is the defendant prejudiced?

    dave (527e4d)

  7. Dave,

    It might not be a problem. Assuming it’s true, it could be the juror/boss told his staff he would probably be through with jury duty Thursday and they guessed from there. He probably shouldn’t have said that but I don’t think it’s a big problem. Even jurors are entitled to some control over their lives!

    DRJ (42ad54)

  8. DRJ:

    Assuming it’s true, it could be the juror/boss told his staff he would probably be through with jury duty Thursday and they guessed from there.

    It could even be less explicit than that; maybe he just told his secretary to schedule a meeting with Mr. So and So tomorrow.

    “How’s the trial going?”

    “Can’t tell you.”

    “How do you think you’ll vote?”

    “Can’t tell you.”

    If the secretary is smart, no matter what the boss actually said — he or she will say that the boss only said to make an appointment for the next day. I can’t see any rational judge overturning a guilty verdict on that basis.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd ab Hugh (445647)

  9. Dafydd,

    That’s a good point and it’s certainly possible, but I don’t think a juror would know when his/her participation might end. There would be a time scheduled to receive the verdict and it might have been that day, the following day or later – remember the Holy Land Foundation trial where the verdict was held for several days? In addition, this was a bifurcated trial so the jury continues to serve in the punishment phase where, as here, there is a guilty verdict.

    DRJ (42ad54)

  10. DRJ–my first thought was exactly what you said in comment 7. Perhaps the employer was a little more explicit–calling in to check on the office/store, and telling his employee he’d probably be back in the office the next day. If Texas is like Florida, there’s usually a couple of days between the guilty verdict and the punishment phase in which the jurors can go about their normal business. And, since the commenter explicity said the employer refused to give any details, I don’t see this resulting in much of anything (unless the paper decides to not comply with the subpoena).

    kishnevi (a3afc6)

  11. I have served on twice as a juror, both were felony cases. If it is wrong for a juror to anticipate when the trail or deliberations will be at an end, then a lot of cases are in jeopardy.

    alan (a0ff19)

  12. I think that the bigger problem is that if the juror disregarded this rule, he may have disregarded others. And chances are, when the judge polls the jury, more than one will own up to discussing the case — or possibly even reading media accounts. The prosecutor in this case made a big deal of the defendant’s family members “perjuring” themselves, and drilled it into the jury (as she should) that persons under oath must tell the whole truth. This is over the line.

    Kym Borree (68a300)

  13. My first thought was that whoever posted that comment had nothing to do with the jury. My first thought was someone was trying to get someone on the jury in trouble or just to throw a wrench in the works. I was wondering what was in it for the poster, not the juror.

    kimsch (2ce939)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0867 secs.