This is part II of a repost of an article by Robert Ambrogi on the IMS Expert Services blog (here is a link to the first post). These are unbelievable stories of actual cases and situations where attorneys, judges and jurors posted blog articles and shared stories on social media sites which got them in trouble. Amazing - and funny.7. When jurors tweet
After jurors in an Arkansas case awarded a verdict of $12.6 million against a building materials company, one juror boasted on Twitter, "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money." And that was only one of at least eight tweets he posted from his cell phone during the trial. Another said that the company would "probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter."
Upon learning of the juror's tweets, the company promptly moved for a new trial. The defense lawyer contended that the juror's tweets showed he "was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience."
Surprisingly, the trial judge denied the request for a new trial. The judge conceded that the juror's posts were in bad taste, but he ruled that they did not amount to improper conduct sufficient to warrant a new trial. Given that it is otherwise out $12 million, we have to assume the defendant will appeal the case and ask a higher court to weigh in on the twittering juror.
6. Two-faced on Facebook
You never know who may be watching you online. Remember that the next time you give a judge a made-up excuse for why you need a continuance.
A lawyer learned that lesson when she told Susan Criss, a trial judge in Galveston, Texas, that she needed a continuance because of a death in her family. Criss recounted what happened in a recent speech for the American Bar Association Judicial Division that was reported by the legal newspaper Texas Lawyer.
Having already given the lawyer a one-week continuance, Judge Criss was surprised when the lawyer's partner came into court and said that this time she would need a full month. But as a regular user of Facebook, Judge Criss had a surprise of her own up the sleeve of her judicial robe.
"I knew from her bragging on a Facebook account that she had been partying that same week," Criss said of the supposedly grieving lawyer. The judge told the surprised partner about what she had seen on Facebook. You can guess what she said about the continuance.
5. Careful who you 'friend'
While meeting in chambers with the judge during a North Carolina child-custody trial, the conversation turned briefly to Facebook. The wife's lawyer did not use it, but both the husband's lawyer and the judge did.
That evening, the judge logged on to Facebook and "friended" the husband's lawyer. As the trial proceeded, the judge and the lawyer commented about it to each other through their Facebook pages. At one point, the lawyer posted, "I have a wise Judge."
After the case ended, the wife's lawyer found out about the "friendship." She immediately moved for a new trial and for the judge's disqualification. The judge promptly removed himself from the case and the wife got a new trial.
The judge got something too – a lesson in judicial ethics in the form of a public reprimand from the state's Judicial Standards Commission. It seems his Facebook messages violated that irksome little prohibition against a judge engaging in ex parte communications.
After jurors in an Arkansas case awarded a verdict of $12.6 million against a building materials company, one juror boasted on Twitter, "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money." And that was only one of at least eight tweets he posted from his cell phone during the trial. Another said that the company would "probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter."
Upon learning of the juror's tweets, the company promptly moved for a new trial. The defense lawyer contended that the juror's tweets showed he "was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience."
Surprisingly, the trial judge denied the request for a new trial. The judge conceded that the juror's posts were in bad taste, but he ruled that they did not amount to improper conduct sufficient to warrant a new trial. Given that it is otherwise out $12 million, we have to assume the defendant will appeal the case and ask a higher court to weigh in on the twittering juror.
6. Two-faced on Facebook
You never know who may be watching you online. Remember that the next time you give a judge a made-up excuse for why you need a continuance.
A lawyer learned that lesson when she told Susan Criss, a trial judge in Galveston, Texas, that she needed a continuance because of a death in her family. Criss recounted what happened in a recent speech for the American Bar Association Judicial Division that was reported by the legal newspaper Texas Lawyer.
Having already given the lawyer a one-week continuance, Judge Criss was surprised when the lawyer's partner came into court and said that this time she would need a full month. But as a regular user of Facebook, Judge Criss had a surprise of her own up the sleeve of her judicial robe.
"I knew from her bragging on a Facebook account that she had been partying that same week," Criss said of the supposedly grieving lawyer. The judge told the surprised partner about what she had seen on Facebook. You can guess what she said about the continuance.
5. Careful who you 'friend'
While meeting in chambers with the judge during a North Carolina child-custody trial, the conversation turned briefly to Facebook. The wife's lawyer did not use it, but both the husband's lawyer and the judge did.
That evening, the judge logged on to Facebook and "friended" the husband's lawyer. As the trial proceeded, the judge and the lawyer commented about it to each other through their Facebook pages. At one point, the lawyer posted, "I have a wise Judge."
After the case ended, the wife's lawyer found out about the "friendship." She immediately moved for a new trial and for the judge's disqualification. The judge promptly removed himself from the case and the wife got a new trial.
The judge got something too – a lesson in judicial ethics in the form of a public reprimand from the state's Judicial Standards Commission. It seems his Facebook messages violated that irksome little prohibition against a judge engaging in ex parte communications.
~~~~~~
Alerding Castor Hewitt, LLP is an Indianapolis law firm focusing on business law, information technology law (including SaaS law and legal technology consulting), private equity consulting, and business and Internet litigation.
Powered by Compendium Blogware
Comments for 10 Cases Where Online Activity Came Back to Haunt II