Wal-Mart trial, forums, raise interesting questions
The internet has changed life for many people - certainly for journalists.
But think what it must be like for the legal profession - judges, prosecutors, attorneys - to have their work analyzed on internet forums while the trials are in progress.
Jon Whitman sued Bedford Township in mid-September. The trial began Jan. 2. Meanwhile, a thread on the Eyes and Ears forum on monroenews.com, entitled, “How will the judge rule in the Whitman lawsuit against Bedford Township” was posted on Jan. 1, the day before the trial started.
In the last three weeks, there have been 44 posts on the thread, ranging from predictions to attacks to offering insight to cheerleading for both sides.
I don’t know whether the judge and attorneys read the forums on monroenews.com. But if they do, they’ve probably gone through several emotions, from puzzled to angry to humored.
There isn’t a jury in this trial, so there aren’t issues with jury access to the forums and possible prejudicial comments. But that’s undoubtedly already become an issue in some trials. The Sonya Moussaed trial last November, which was before a jury, also was accompanied by a discussion on the forums, titled “Is Sonya Moussaed guilty or not.” The discussion eventually was joined by a juror, after the trial had concluded.
Personally, I have enough confidence in the resiliency of the American justice system to believe that it will find a way to deal with the challenges created by the internet. But it raises some interesting questions.
The judge in the Whitman/Bedford trial expects to take several more weeks to come to a decision. There undoubtedly will be plenty of people willing to help him on the forums over the next few weeks.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:31 am
IMHO, I feel forums such as those on monroenews.com are simply an extension of the reporting by the Monroe News staff. I’m sure that, even hundreds of years ago when there was a “town crier” reporting the news, people who heard him or her would discuss the news as reported, possibly even attacking each other verbally when disagreeing. The internet takes this further, archiving such discussions as never before. You can believe other technologies will collect all this in even greater detail in the future. But it’s still the same concept as it was with the town crier, except on a different front.
I do feel if a judge has issues with such online discussions it would be up to him or her to shield the jurors from such discussions. It would not be in anyone’s best interest to squelch those discussions, regardless of where they are online, in order to shield those same jurors from outside opinions. Those discussions would still take place but in some other venue. Are newsgathering organizations good places for this? Absolutely. To me, it simply makes the entire story more complete.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Both excellent points. I love the “town crier” example. And I agree that it’s the judge’s role to protect the integrity of the judicial process.