May Jurors Twitter?

From Scientific American:  

Avid tweeter Jonhathan Powell of Fayetteville, Ark., will have his name in the New York Times tomorrow. How do we know this? From his Twitter feed, of course. That would be the same feed he used last month to tweet about a trial while a member of the jury, which pleased his Twitter fans but prompted the defense attorney in the case to seek a new trial. On what grounds? That Powell’s tweets allegedly showed he was biased against defendant Russell Wright (and his company Stoam Holdings, a building materials company in Fayetteville, Ark.), who was found guilty of mismanaging investors’ funds, The Morning News reports. The jury awarded investors who sued Stoam $12.6 million. 

The article mentions another, similar case.  I will confess that this tweeting/twittering business is one technology I haven’t gotten involved in at all, so I don’t fully understand how it works.  I take it, though, that the twitterer (tweeter? twit?) posts statements for others to read.  For instance, Mr. Powell posted about his experience as a juror, while he was still a juror.

To me, it seems unwise to permit jurors to twitter during the time when they are performing their duties. Just as it would seem unwise to permit jurors to write a column in the morning edition of the newspaper about how things were going on the jury.

Updated:  It turns out that John McCain also twitters.  Perhaps I should try it.  In the summer.

Continue ReadingMay Jurors Twitter?

RIP, RJN

When Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and editor-in-chief of the journal FIRST THINGS, passed away in January, numerous glowing tributes to his life and work poured forth.  Appreciation for his contributions emerged from all sectors — leaders from America’s religious, political, and academic communities praised his intellectual work and his pastoral nature. Yesterday, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a lecture at the University of Minnesota School of Law entitled “The Influence of Richard John Neuhaus on Religion in the Public Square.” Her thoughts, and hopefully those of others as well, will analyze and honor the tremendous impact Fr. Neuhaus had specifically on America’s law and jurisprudence. His 1984 book The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America coined the phrase that defined the effort by some to drive religious dialogue and values out of America’s public discourse. The book is the starting point for efforts by people of faith to defend moral and religious arguments in public policy discussions (Westlaw finds over 250 uses of the phrase in its journals database).

In 1996, his journal, FIRST THINGS, published a symposium entitled “The End of Democracy? Judicial Usurpation of Politics”. Contributors included Robert Bork, Chuck Colson, Robert George, and Hadley Arkes. The symposium began with a very straightforward and intentionally shocking question question: “The question here explored, in full awareness of its far-reaching consequences, is whether we have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime.” The editorial introducing the symposium gave a tentative answer as well: “What is happening now is the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people.” The symposium launched a heated debate about the role of judges in a constitutional republic, and remains a standard reference point in the modern intellectual discussion of “judicial activism.”

Continue ReadingRIP, RJN

Independence and Accountability in Wisconsin’s Lower Courts

All methods of judicial selection must account for and balance the competing goals of judicial independence and judicial accountability. Judge James Wynn, Jr. and Eli Mazur described judicial independence as an “immunity from extra-legal pressures” and judicial accountability as the judiciary’s “responsiveness to public opinion.” A method of selection cannot treat independence and accountability as having equal importance. Independence — immunity from extra-legal pressures — must come at the expense of accountability — responsiveness to public opinion, a form of extra-legal pressure.

The three primary methods of judicial selection in the United States are appointment (either by the executive or the legislature), election, and merit selection.  Appointment is viewed as the best method for promoting judicial independence.  Election is viewed as the best method for promoting judicial accountability.  And merit selection attempts to split the difference by having the executive make an appointment from a pool of candidates selected by representatives of the public.

When the issue of judicial selection comes up in a public forum, the focus of the discussion is typically on how to select judges to a state’s highest court.  Wisconsin experienced a public debate on the selection of Supreme Court Justices last spring because of the content of the campaigning and the influx of special-interest group spending during the Supreme Court elections of 2007 and 2008.  Judge Diane Sykes summarized the public debate that appeared in Wisconsin’s major newspapers in her speech published in the most recent issue of the Marquette Law Review.

Continue ReadingIndependence and Accountability in Wisconsin’s Lower Courts
Newer Posts
Older Posts