Lawyer: Toss Ark. murder conviction due to tweets
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - A man sent to death row for robbing and shooting a teenager after a party should have his murder conviction overturned because a judge wouldn't dismiss a juror caught tweeting during the trial, his lawyers argued Thursday to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Erickson Dimas-Martinez's lawyer told justices the juror was tweeting during her client's 2010 trial for the slaying of Derrick Jefferson, despite the judge's instruction to not to post on the Internet or otherwise or communicate with anyone about the case.
Unless and until the conviction is overturned I can't get too worked up about this. The motion was filed by the defense attorney - who is supposed to be looking for the slightest reason to overturn a conviction. Let's face it: She got the "L" in this game - she's looking to at least turn it into a "T"... From the sounds of it - and it's coming from the prosecution, so grain-of-salt time, it doesn't sound like the juror in question disobeyed the judge's order to not talk about the trial, so it's doubtful this will go anywhere.
It should also be a pretty easy case to prove or disprove whether the juror did actually tweet specifically about the case or not. If the defense attorney has printouts or electronic data to suggest the juror did ignore the judge's instructions, then that's one thing. Present the evidence, let the judge decide how it should impact the conviction. But if not; if this is merely a fishing trip that the defense attorney is hoping will yield something, then there should be consequences for not having definitive reasons for filing the motion to overturn the conviction.
In any case, if the juror did acquit, they wouldn't care about the twit.
That is all.
3 comments:
"juror was tweeting during her client's 2010 trial"
If this means during court proceedings:
The juror should be tried for contempt and the accused murderer should have a retrial.
If this means in the evening after court went into recess:
I agree with Jay. Review the tweets.
Opposite opinions - jurors actions should only be subject to review by other jurors. The only penalty should be dismissal from the jury (bringing in one of the alternates).
Trial by jury is enshrined in the constitution. The judge should have not the slightest hint of power over the jury. DAs shouldn't be allowed in the same ball park as a hint of power.
The jury should have full and unfettered access to all laws, and case law, and should be able to ask questions directly of the prosecution and defense lawyers.
If the court doesn't want people tweeting, their authority is to ban such devices from the court room. The judge must not have authority to order people not to take notes, or to pay attention.
On the Gripping Hand: isn't it kind of Strange that the State of Arkansas allowed this to make it all the way to its Supreme Court? And I bet you, if this gets shot down on the State Level, it'll go on to the Federales.
So we have a Convicted Murderer, appealing Not on Bad Evidence, Not on Denial of Witness Testimony, Not on Lack of DNA, but because a Juror was caught Tweeting?
Friends, if this goes on, some Muslim Terrorist who blew up a Jewish School could get off because there were Women on the Jury, and he wasn't "Tried by his Peers."
Moral of the Story? Why are we even reading about this case at all? The news should be "The Execution of Convicted Murder that was held..."
Post a Comment