Tweeting about Twittering Jurors
Earlier this month, lawyers for a building products company asked an Arkansas judge to overturn a $12.6 million judgment because “Juror Johnathon” had been sending out tweets on Twitter about his thoughts on the trial. Here are our thoughts in Twitter fashion:
atlblog: Everyone’s talking about Twitter these days and the ability to broadcast your thoughts continuously in 140 character tweets.
atlblog: We really should have done a full post on it last week when that NYT story about twittering jurors and mistrials made its way around the Web.
atlblog: Jurors aren’t supposed to talk about a case outside the courtroom. Twittering is talking. What will judges do about this?
atlblog: We wonder which firms will go to the Final Four in the ATL March Madness contest… Oh. Sorry. Off topic.
atlblog: @WSJ’s Ashby Jones. We liked the headline for your piece: Twelve Twittering Men? Very clever. We imagine Henry Fonda with a BlackBerry.
atlblog: That WSJ article has a weird Bob Dylan non-sequitur at the end. Apparently, Dylan’s outhouse stinks up his neighborhood… Sorry. Off topic.
atlblog: @davidlat. Please stop twittering about the recession and how the ship be sinking. It depresses us… Sorry. Off topic.
atlblog: Why are we so addicted to broadcasting our thoughts that we can’t not tweet and update Facebook statuses during jury duty?
atlblog: Jurors doing their own online research is the more serious problem. Lots of good letters to the NYT editor from lawyers & one law student.
atlblog: Please feel free to tweet your thoughts about jurors, social networking, technology, and twittering in the comments.
Appeal says juror sent ‘tweets’ during case [Associated Press]
As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up [New York Times]
Twelve Twittering Men? [Wall Street Journal]
Letters to the Editor about “As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up” [New York Times]
(36) 
Comments
stfu
Twitter: the fun new way to lose your job!
Old news. Read about this last week.
I wish Kash would Twitter me. Twitter me real good.
Follow me!
Twitter me!
Tweet me!
Love me!
Seriously, Twitter is for insecure, socially-deficient, friendless self-(delusionally)-important people who believe that someone actually gives a crap about what they 'tweet' or whatever. Real people with real friends don't shout out into the darkness and hope someone is listening. They *communicate* with *real* friends about *important* things, and go on living their life.
Twittering is a fad that will disappear in less than a year, after (a) everyone realizes that it adds no value whatsoever and (b) an even newer time-wasting device evolves, which itself will disappear within about a year.
Instead of posting like you're using Twitter, try posting like you're writing moderately intelligent comments on interesting legal phenomena.
Twittering is not a form of talking. Talking involves a back and forth, where one person makes statements, and then the other person responds. The person responding to your statements is what the court cares about, and why talking is not allowed. Twittering is just making inane announcements to the world, and does not influence a jurors decision in a case. This is just a grasp at straws by an attorney who lost his case. That's what I thought two weeks ago when I first heard about this issue, and I still feel the same about it.
Tweet this. Twitter sucks and is the biggest tech flash in the pan since Flooz.com.
You know I actually don't like twitter at all. I tried it for a few months - but couldn't figure it out. Maybe I'm just too old! lol1
I wish a certain ass lobster would refrain from Tweeting. It is very unprofessional.
Mailing it in these days huh Kash. One twit makes for eleven angry men (and women).
it's 140 characters.
Gay
I hope we can change the tax rate on tweets.
-BHO
What's a Twitter?
these guys are on twitter too: http://www.blackbooklegal.com
The most shocking thing about this story isn't the presence of Twitter in jury rooms; it's the fact that we still allow 12 commonfolk to decide the outcomes of multi-million dollar cases.
Juries and free elections are both a cancer on our society.
Kash, honey, you f'ed up on this line: "Sorry. Off topic."
EVERYTHING is off-topic on twitter.
If I Tweet myself repeatedly for a week, will that make me more prestigiouser?
"Juries and free elections are both a cancer on our society."
Agreed. These concepts worked when they were first introduced because they were limited to people who had a brain. Voting was never meant to be a right for everyone.
140 characters. Fail.
21 -
Well said.
They were limited to people with a brain and some stake in and contribution to the prosperity of the nation. Once the proletariat realizes that it can vote itself bread and circuses, it's all over.
-18
But seriously, why does this blog suck now?
Just a note to Lat. Don't venture too far past Morgantown. West By God Virginians aren't too tolerant of the homosexuals and butt pirates.
told you http://twitter.com/blackbooklegal
Kash has no relevant legal experience that could make her contributions to a law blog even remotely interesting.
Twatting is annoying.
I think it's great these lameo's turned off comments on the last post about WV. What is this Volokh? Lat must be too afraid comments on his blog will get the natives all restless before you venture to the Mountain State. I'm sure he's seen Deliverance.
160 characters, that is not nearly BIG enough.
@30: Awesome! I was wondering when you'd show up. Those 3500 square feet seem to be laid out in the right places....
The problem isn't Twitter. The problem is juries. This kind of story merely exposes the unreasonableness behind all jury verdicts, and that's why courts are so upset about this kind of juror behavior.
The framers assumed that twelve random people were capable of rendering a non-arbitrary decision, and our legal system has been built around maintaining that fiction ever since..
Stupid Tweeting jurors strip away the pretense that juries decide cases through a process of thoughtful deliberation, and exposes the fact that trial outcomes hinge on jurors' prejudices about the parties and their lawyers, and on jurors' unreasoning and unreasonable failures to understand evidence.
Hopefully, we'll get more Twittering jurors to help draw attention to the need to abolish the civil jury. I don't see what really stands in the way of amending the Constitution to fix this. Nobody seriously believes that a dozen semi-literate high-school dropouts can understand expert testimony, let alone analyze conflicting expert opinions and discern something like truth.
Nobody wants to serve on a jury, either.
Bonk! Homey don't tweet dat!
Bonk! Homey don't tweet dat!
Bonk! Homey don't tweet dat!
Twitter is for people who constantly crave attention and (quite often) incorrectly assume other people give a shit about them and their miserable lives.