Juror Cited for Contempt for Blogging about Case
The jury foreman who served on the murder trial of a gang member in Ventura County, California found himself in hot water after the judge learned that he had blogged and exposed details about the case during the trial. The jury foreman's blog not only discussed the case, but also complained about the length of the 19-day trial as well as being critical of the judge's staff members.
At the conclusion of the trial, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Edward Brodie sentenced the gang member to 27 years to life in prison and then directed his attention to Juror No. 7. Judge Brodie informed the juror that by blogging about the case, he had failed to follow daily instructions to refrain from discussing the case with anyone during the trial. Brodie then held the juror in contempt of court.
The juror has a blog called "The Misanthrope." During the trial, the juror posted photographs on the blog of the 15-inch, double-edged, saw-toothed knife that was used as a murder weapon. He also had a chat room set up so that visitors to the blog could ask him questions about the trial. The defense attorneys in the case learned of the blog and notified the judge about it.
The juror was ordered to appear in court to answer the contempt charge and was questioned under oath about his blog. He apologized to the judge for posting information and details about the testimony and evidence at the trial. The juror could have been jailed for five days, fined $1,000 or both, but the judge decided not to punish him in that way because his misconduct did not result in an unfair trial.
During the sentencing phase of the trial, the defense attorneys made a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The judge denied the motion and said that the jury was not biased as a result of the juror's blog and that the defendant was not denied a fair trial.
The judge knows that lawyers for the man who was sentenced to prison in this case will file an appeal, and juror misconduct will be the first issue on the agenda of the appeals court.
The blogger in this case may have thought, as many bloggers do, that he was entitled to say whatever he wished on his blog, or anywhere else, under the First Amendment. Recently, there have been several cases of bloggers who have been silenced by the court, proving that while you may have the right to free speech in many situations, that right is not absolute.
It is true that the First Amendment limits censorship by the government. However, that does not mean that Americans are granted the right to yell "fire" in a theater or say "bomb" on an airplane. In that same vein, there are civil consequences for defamation of character, slander and libel. Likewise, when people are chosen to serve on a jury, it is a requirement that they not frustrate the judicial process by discussing - or blogging about - the facts of the case.
