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.

Not only is it a first here in federal court, it’s the first trial I’ve had “retweets.” Retweet is Twitter-speak for someone repeating one of the short, 140-character posts to their followers — passing it along to a broader audience.

A few of the posts people have “retweeted” (RT) during the past week of testimony — from Barnegat, N.J. to Seattle:

• Alex73013: @rsylvester “Smith initially said he didn’t know anything about the robbery, but he eventually admitted to robbing the store to police.” …

• LindsayGriffith: Oops! RT @rsylvester: Court just learned that one of the jurors realized she’s a cousin to the fingerprint examiner who testified earlier.

• DBallardReisch: @rsylvester Not really clear how anyone remembers what happened in 1995!

• EmilyMedvec: RT @RSylvester “There was a man in the bathroom, who she said she didn’t know.”

• VBalasubramani: “To get OG status,’you’ve got to put in work.’ That includes riding in retaliation of the enemies.” (@rsylvester – from trial)

Continue following the trial this week at the box on the left or on my Twitter feed.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten told defense counsel that he would allow me to file live posts, via Twitter, from his Wichita courtroom. Twitter is a micro-blogging social network platform that allows users to file and follow short posts of 140 characters or less.

“Twitter is on,” Marten told the lawyers in a brief hearing this afternoon. Marten said he will allow attorneys to file any objections they have for the record.

Marten is tech-savvy, and led efforts to make sure the renovation of the 1932 federal courthouse in Wichita included updates for a wired environment. The courthouse has wireless Internet connections that allow attorneys to access files back at their offices from the courtroom, for example.

I’ve covered several trials, hearings and other proceedings in state court during the past year. But this will be the first time I’ve been allowed to do it in federal court.

Federal court traditionally has tighter rules. For instance, federal courts do not allow cameras, video or audio recording in the courtroom.

“I don’t see this as prejudicial,” Marten said.

Marten will tell jurors not to view news coverage, including the posts on Twitter, which also feed into this blog and accompany related stories on Kansas.com.

Bloggers covered the federal trial of Scooter Libby in Washingon D.C., filing “live updates” while sitting in an adjacent press room in 2007.

A federal judge in Sioux City, Iowa allowed a reporter for the Cedar Rapids, Gazette to live blog a tax fraud trial last year.