Posts
Click here to read this mailing online.
"E-Commerce Law" - 1 new article
"Bored" Juror's Facebook Posts Won't Be Turned Over . . . YetThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of California refused to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in the case of a California juror who had been ordered to permit Facebook to release the postings made by the juror during a criminal trial. The court issued its ruling in Juror Number One v. California, 2011 WL 567356 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2011) last week. Plaintiff Juror Number One was the foreperson in a gang beating trial last year in the Sacramento County Superior Court. During the trial, the Plaintiff commented on his Facebook page that he was "still" on jury duty and was "bored" during the presentation of cell phone record evidence. One of the other jurors on the case became Facebook "friends" with the Plaintiff and, after trial, contacted defense counsel indicating that the Plaintiff had posted "comments about the evidence during trial."The judge who presided over the trial held an evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged juror misconduct. After the hearing, counsel for the criminal defendants issued a subpoena to Facebook requesting copies of postings made by the Plaintiff during the criminal trial. Facebook moved to quash the subpoena, relying on the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2701-2702. The presiding judge quashed the subpoena but ordered the Plaintiff "within 10 days from the date of this order ... [to] execute a consent form sufficient to satisfy the exception stated in Title 18, U.S.C. section 2702(b) allowing Facebook to supply the postings made by Juror # 1 during trial." On February 8, 2011, plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Request for Immediate Stay with the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, to prevent enforcement of the Order. That petition was denied on February 10, 2011. Plaintiff then sought review of the Court of Appeal's decision in the California Supreme Court and filed suit in federal court, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the presiding judge from enforcing his order, to enjoin Facebook from disclosing the postings, and to enjoin the criminal defendants from undertaking any further efforts to obtain the postings. Plaintiff argued that requiring a signed consent form would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and would also violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, the California Constitution, and various state statutes. Plaintiff filed his motion on the date he was required by the order to sign the consent form permitting the release of his Facebook posts. In denying the motion, the federal court relied upon Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), which governs the abstention of federal courts when a state court action seeks the same relief on a federal constitutional question. After the federal court ruled, the California Supreme Court issued an order staying enforcement of order requiring the release of the Plaintiff's Facebook posts, pending full consideration of the Plaintiff's appeal. Commentators expect the California Supreme Court to rule relatively quickly. For more information, see Facebook won't be asked to hand over juror's postings, for now and Will Facebook and California Defense Attorney Continue to Fight the Killa Mobb?  More Recent Articles |
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "E-Commerce Law" or change your subscription, view mailing archives or subscribe
Unsubscribe from all current and future newsletters powered by FeedBlitz
| Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |
No comments:
Post a Comment