Blogging jurors spell trouble
Back in January, I blogged about my jury duty -- including live from the courthouse. I didn't write anything about the case on which I was being called as a potential juror -- at least, not until I was dismissed from the panel before the actual trial began. But nobody in the courtroom advised me what I could and couldn't post about, and none of the lawyers asked me or any of my fellow venirepersons whether we even had blogs.
Such reticence about this medium may soon become a thing of the past, as this article explains.
| Posted at 4:54 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (3)
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
The "discussion" aspect of blogging while the trial is on-going would seem to depend on whether the blogger allows comments. If so, it doesn't seem much different that having a real life discussion -- because even if the blogger doesn't engage or respond, s/he is still able to "listen" to that feedback, which could change his/her perceptions.
Posted by ellie | March 27, 2007 9:20 PM
Glad to see that " Jury Nullification" is well and alive. So sad most jurors haven't the foggiest about this little known law. Hell, I don't think you can find mention of this in the Civic classes today. As long as there is no comment forum on the juror's blogging page, what is the harm? I still have my problems with" sealed" cases and also the instructions to a dismissed " Grand Jury" forbidding them to write or converse about the cases before them...albeit, I think " Grand Juries" are a slap in the face of justice.
Posted by KISS | March 28, 2007 7:57 AM
I'm currently serving, and while I posted initially on my day-one observations, I took the post down and won't post on the matter again. Giving my self-employment and all around bad attitude, it could have been begged off. It's a civil commitment, and quite frankly if it were I in the docket (knocks on wood) I wouldn't want an asshole like me blogging about it.
Posted by Thomas Ware | March 29, 2007 8:49 AM