Juror Misconduct: Found in their Blogs

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Jurors who blog seem to be actively seeking their 15 minutes of fame. Many, like the man quoted above, seem to be intent on shooting themselves in the foot, to boot.

  2. Sam Yospe says:

    But for the second juror quoted (Robert), there is no indication of who he is in the blog. I should note that the April blog entry about his jury service is his last blog entry–so I wonder if maybe he did get caught? But I don’t see how anyone could have found out. For the first juror (the one who was caught) the case does not indicate the address of his blog. This particular blogger was a lawyer–perhaps he runs a professional blog? (In the case, he is referred to as “Juror No. 8, so I was unable to find his actual blog entries. However, they were all quoted in the case.) I did see that Legal Research Blog tried to track down juror No. 8: http://law.onecle.com/2007/06/17/juror-blogs/

  3. Paul Gowder says:

    I’m not sure I see the misconduct. Robert may have used scary-sounding words (“conscious manipulation,”) but all he did was use persuasion and encourage people who agreed with him to speak more than others. He had no formal power to silence those who disagreed, save what they gave him… he was jus a really effective biased moderator. And no indication he only voted the way he did because he hated the lawyer, he saw himself as correcting for the effect of a dishonest lawyer.

    Similarly, what’s wrong with what Donald the Duck did? He insisted people stop arguing and come to a vote. He persuaded them to do so, and they agreed. Where does that violate some deliberative norm that’s so serious that it drew the ire of the court of appeals?

  4. anon says:


    I had the same question as you re: the Donald the Duck juror, so I clicked the Deliberations link. At voir dire, the juror lied about his profession (he was an attorney, and called himself an office manager).