When judges tells jurors not to discuss a case with anyone, they also mean via social networks such as Twitter.
A $12.5 million verdict is being challenged in Arkansas over a juror sending “tweets” – the 140-character posts on the Twitter micro-blogging network.
The motion for a new trial was filed Thursday on behalf of a building materials company in a suit won by two investors and described by one lawyer as a “Ponzi scheme” comparible to the Bernie Madoff case.
Lawyers for the defendant claim the juror filed eight tweets from his cell phone:
“One read in part: “oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.”
Another describing what “Juror Jonathan” did today, read: “I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”
I’ve used Twitter to cover trials, but judges have told jurors not to look at coverage over the Internet. They also tell jurors not to discuss the case outside of court. That would also mean don’t talk about it on Twitter.
It would appear the plaintiffs in this case might have an argument if the juror tweeted after the verdict and after the judge released him from duty.
Regardless, those involved in trials should be careful how they use the Internet and social networking.
Cindy Stanford (aka @WichitaCindy) told me she stopped following me on Twitter when she was called to jury duty in a the present Crips trial in federal court. She did not make the final jury panel and started following me again after she was released.
A Wichita police officer’s claims that she was sexually discriminated against should go to trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled today.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Monti Belot to dismiss the lawsuit by other women working for the WPD but reinstated the case of Greta Semsroth.
But the three-judge panel said a jury should decided whether the department treated Semsroth unfairly on two of her claims:
- That she was subjected to a hostile work environment by other supervisors and officers repeatedly referring to her by a derogatory term usually reserved for women.
- And that after she complained her supervisors retaliated against her by reassigning her to a job on what other officers called “the banishment beat,” in east Wichita, where there are few serious crimes and limited opportunity for advancement.
In the ruling, the judges said:
“The evidence indicates a work environment that was permeated with gender-based intimidation and insult. … The allegations suggest that sexual discrimination remains a concern within the Department.”
A 51-year-old Wichita woman will spend more than two years in a federal prison for stealing more than $300,000 from the doctor’s office where she worked.
U.S. Senior District Judge Wesley Brown sentenced Frances E. Holt to 27 months in prison on Wednesday.
Holt pleaded guilty in September to mail fraud and wire fraud, admitting she made $323,356 in unauthorized purchases on a credit card issued to Wichita physician Charles W. Beck. Holt had worked for Beck since 1996, keeping payroll records, entering patient charges, printing checks and paying bills for the office.
But she also obtained a credit card without Beck’s knowledge and used it to buy items for herself, her friends and relatives.
Brown also ordered Holt to pay back the money she embezzled.
There is no parole from federal prison. After Holt’s release she will serve another three years probation.
My wife says you should never put anything in a company e-mail that you don’t want to be shown to 12 strangers on a big movie screen. She practices employment law, including sexual harassment lawsuits, and she said you wouldn’t believe what people put in e-mails that end up being shown to juries in public courtrooms.
Searching electronic archives of company e-mails and files is becoming an increasingly useful tool for lawyers involved in lawsuits against you or your boss. It’s called “e-discovery.”
Following are phrases that lawyers and investigators like to search for, from Roger Matus’ “Death by E-mail” blog:
- “I could get into trouble for telling you this, but…”
- “Delete this email immediately.”
- “I really shouldn’t put this in writing.”
- “Don’t ask. You don’t want to know.”
- “Is this actually legal?”
(Thanks to
Walter Olson for pointing this out via
Twitter):