lol

Originally Posted by j-dogg_69

So, is there going to be a retrial with a new jury or is this guy now completely free because someone unrelated to the actual crime tweeted?

Retrial. You don't get let off the hook just because a juror screwed up.

Originally Posted by chrisadam85

has anybody asked the question:

how was this tweet, tweeter, twit or twat traced back to this guy?

did he go to the judge and say "hey judge...i twatted this last night, check it out"

dummy

You'd be amazed at how much time goes into researching/tracking the jurors when you're a litigator. Ex: U.S. v. Forde, 2011 WL 63831 (4th Cir. Jan 10, 2011).

"In a post-trial motion, Forde informed the district court that while the trial was proceeding, a friend of the husband of the jury foreperson posted on Twitter an explanation of the difference between “assume” and “presume.” Ford contended that, since the posting occurred during trial, it was possible that the jury foreperson had talked to her husband about the case, her husband then talked to his friend about the case, the friend then posted the statement on Twitter, and the foreperson saw the Twitter posting. Forde thus requested that the district court hold a hearing to investigate the potential misconduct." (The request was denied, but it shows you how much effort goes into teasing out jury misconduct when your case has gone south.)

Originally Posted by j'aime_lacey

This isn't double jeopardy because the ruling didn't stand. The article was very poorly written and incorrectly titled, which leads to misinterpretation. It should've been titled "Judge calls a mistrial" rather than "a conviction overturned".

Either way, I stand by my former statement: Dumb.

Yeah, my first reaction to the story was shoddy reporting, Luddite court. Figured it was worth submitting for the UO bit, though. [Also, condolences/encouragement for a fellow law-person in finals mode!]

Originally Posted by KenneyBN

everyone is a machine.

We all work, eat, sleep, repeat.

Originally Posted by wall e

He wasn't technically under oath when he said that, right?

waiting for this.

haha man this is pretty epic, I was just thinking about listening to this album again today. And I never knew the words "define the great line" were actually mentioned in the album, that line is really deep! i should read the lyrics sometime..

Originally Posted by MBIIdollaBill

haha man this is pretty epic, I was just thinking about listening to this album again today. And I never knew the words "define the great line" were actually mentioned in the album, that line is really deep! i should read the lyrics sometime..

it's not really epic that some dumbass caused a mistrial just because he couldn't go without tweeting, and those aren't even underoath lyrics

Originally Posted by Born_For_This

We all work, eat, sleep, repeat.

That's what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Derka Derka

it's not really epic that some dumbass caused a mistrial just because he couldn't go without tweeting, and those aren't even underoath lyrics

then where is it from?

Holy lol.

Originally Posted by MBIIdollaBill

then where is it from?

no where, the guy just made it up and apparently everyone thinks it's a reference to Define The Great Line

He didn't make up anything, he said it was a reference to the album, not to some of the lyrics in said album.

Originally Posted by Derka Derka

no where, the guy just made it up and apparently everyone thinks it's a reference to Define The Great Line

oh ok... nvm. well technically it is a reference, not a lyric

Originally Posted by j'aime_lacey

This isn't double jeopardy because the ruling didn't stand. The article was very poorly written and incorrectly titled, which leads to misinterpretation. It should've been titled "Judge calls a mistrial" rather than "a conviction overturned".

Either way, I stand by my former statement: Dumb.

Showing up WAY late to this party but:

1. ^she's correct. They declared it a mistrial. No double-jeopardy comes into play.
2. The Ak Supreme Court issued the mistrial. It COULD get escalated to the supreme court if they want to make it a first amendment issue.
3. In the US if you can convict someone with good evidence once, you can do it again. The issue will be finding a non-biased jury.
4. Don't use your cell phone when you are a juror. Trust me, your twitter account is not that cool, and shit like this happens when you forget that.

And in a perfect world, he'd plea for life without parole. He should KNOW he is going to be convicted and KNOW he will get the death penalty. It's more humane and a hell of a lot cheaper.

This kind of post is very rare.. its so hard to seek a post like this. very informative and the contents are very Obvious and Concise .I will look more of your post. Thank you for sharing.
bmw for sale