One of the smarty-pants jurors (“Juror Jonathan” of Fayetteville, Arkansas) tweeted the following message on twitter: “oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its [sic] bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.” What is it with these people? If you are going to break a rule, be a little smarter and don’t broadcast it to the world. This bozo blunder is painstakingly reminiscent of the Judge Lawyer Ex Parte Communication on Facebookstory.

For those you don’t know what twitter is (do you sleep all day?), its basically a system where people broadcast what they are doing, for all the world to see. If you don’t know what twitter is, chances are you won’t understand why it would even exist. Fortunately or unfortunately, it’s a world full of yentas, and some people are obsessed with reading that Jack loves eating his cherry pie, or that Wanda is reading a book that she is enjoying soooo much.

The problem with Juror Jonathan is that jurors are usually told not to discuss or share any information about the trial to or with the public. Good one, Jonathan.

So we’re entering the realm of twitter legal issues. Well here’s my tweet for the day – Lawyer Lunch: Hey Jonathan, if you wanted out of the jury, you could’ve just pulled the good ‘ole Larry David stunt!

Tweet This Post

Judge Terry was presiding over a child custody and support case. The attorneys and the judge began discussing Facebook, and before you know it, the judge and defense counsel became Facebook friends. Big deal, right? Nothing wrong with being friends… There is, however, something wrong with a JUDGE WHO PUBLICLY DISCUSSES HIS VIEW OF THE CASE WITH ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS and an ATTORNEY WHO PUBLICLY KISSES THE ASS OF THE JUDGE, FOR THE JUDGE TO SEE. Seriously, that’s what happened.

During that day at court, the attorneys and Judge were discussing an alleged marital affair. Defense counsel posted something on his Facebook wall asking how to prove it. The Judge then wrote on the lawyer’s wall that he “had two good parents to choose from” and that he “feels that he will be back in court,” meaning, according to the reprimand, that the case would not be settled. Of course, the attorney publicly responded to the Judge’s message: “I have a wise Judge.” Actually, it appears you’re a bunch of bozos. The ex parte facebook communications continued.

The next day, during trial, defense counsel wrote on his wall, “I hope I’m in my last day of trial.” Of course, the judge had to reply, giving a little hint: “You are in your last day of trial.”

This wasn’t like one of those situations where you find yourself in the elevator with your judge. This wasn’t even like being at lunch with your judge. Instead, this was like you and your judge standing on benches across a park from one another, having a conversation with each other via megaphones or loudspeakers. Honestly guys, you must be somewhat intelligent…what the hell were you thinking?

Anyway, the Judge disqualified himself and a new trial will be held. Who friended who is unknown, but really, who cares?

Query: Is it legal or ethically ok to friend an opposing party on Facebook, Myspace, or another social networking site in order to get dirt on them? Does the act of “friending” in and of itself constitute an unauthorized communication?

Tweet This Post

For example, Facebook’s policy is as follows:

“Facebook reserves the right to remove and/or reclaim any username at any time for any reason.”
“If you wish to report that someone’s username infringes your intellectual property rights, please fill out our username infringement form.”

With new social networks being developed on a regular basis (to add to the hundreds or thousands that already exist), social network cybersquatting is likely to gain extensive treatment and attention in the terms of use the networks employ.

Tweet This Post