Judge To Newspaper - Reveal Name of Commenter

First time accepted submitter Andy Prough writes "A Kansas judge has ordered a Topeka newspaper to release the name of a commenter on one of its stories about the trial of Anceo D. Stovall for the murder of Natalie Gibson. Using the name 'BePrepared,' the commenter posted the following in response to a story about the ongoing trial on July 21 at 1:45pm: 'Trust me that's all they got in their little world, as you know, I have been there. Remember the pukes names they will do it for ever.' The problem? The court is convinced that 'BePrepared' was a juror, and was not supposed to be accessing news about the trial before it ended on July 24th. The court wants BePrepared's name, address and IP address. The jury was ultimately unable to find Stovall guilty of 10 of the 11 charges against him — including murder. Both defense and prosecution lawyers appear to want a new trial, and if it turns out that BePrepared was a juror, they are more likely to get their wish."

Re:News?

[realityimpaired]

Except it's not perjury. :) The juror is accused of violating sequester rules, not of lying under oath.

Re:News?

[ledow]

It is. Nobody's charged him yet.

But are you suggesting that it's illegal to gather evidence by asking a court for a court order to reveal the data of visits recorded to a website?

Evidence-gathering isn't restricted to just what you are freely given. If it was, almost everyone would get away with crimes.

What you're implying is that if I raid a bank, and the court orders the shop across the street to reveal its CCTV records of that day, that's somehow prejudicial to justice?

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I was a juror I had to swear under oath that I would not/did not access outside sources of information about the trial at hand.

Re:News?

[SJHillman]

It's not about his speech act. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he said or where he said it. However, the act of posting may be evidence that he broke other rules/laws unrelated to speech - anonymous or otherwise.

Re:News?

[Spent2HrOnAName]

If the government wanted me to treat it as a civic duty and not something to get out of, they would pay me enough to live on. $40/day (in my state at least) for two weeks or more is something to go out of one's way to avoid if you're living paycheck to paycheck.

Re:News?

[SilentStaid]

I'm not sure how it is where you work, but on top of getting an admittedly pitiful sum (Usually $40/day for a Federal Trial) for actually serving as a juror I'm fairly certain most places of work will pay you at least a reduced amount, as well.

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Employers can't fire you, but if you're paid an hourly wage, they don't have to pay you while you're on a jury (according to the juror handbook, they're "encouraged to").

Re:News?

[compro01]

It is. Title 28, section 1875 : "No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any permanent employee by reason of such employee’s jury service, or the attendance or scheduled attendance in connection with such service, in any court of the United States"

Bolded is the loophole you can sail the Enterprise through. If you're a contractor or doing a temporary job, your ass is hanging in the breeze.

Re:News?

[mattdm]

In Massachusetts, it's the law. http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/compensa.htm#INFORMATION%20FOR%20EMPLOYERS:%20RIGHTS%20AND%20OBLIGATIONS [mass.gov]: