PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

Juror ordered to turn over Facebook postings in Sacramento gang beating case

Posted on February 5, 2011 by pogowasright.org

Andy Furillo reports that a juror’s Facebook postings during a trial have become the subject of a court order. The defense attorneys want to see if anything the juror posted indicates bias or impropriety – including being influenced by others.

The Facebook fight under way in a Sacramento courtroom pivoted into new territory Friday when a judge gave a juror 10 days to turn over postings he made during a gang beating trial last year or face possible jail time.

An attorney for juror Arturo Ramirez protested the order by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny and said he would appeal it as high and as far as he can.

“It’s a matter of principle and privacy,” lawyer Kenneth L. Rosenfeld said. “There’s no reason this material should be turned over. We’re putting a burden on jurors that’s going to make them not want to serve on jury duty. The entire system collapses without people wanting to serve on jury duty.”

Friday’s hearing had shaped up as a constitutional contest between Facebook and defense lawyers for reputed members of the so-called Killa Mobb gang who said their clients needed the postings to make sure the juror wasn’t biased when he voted to convict them. Facebook countered that the disclosure was precluded by federal computer privacy law.

Kenny short-circuited the constitutional battle with his order Friday that the juror – who was not present in the packed courtroom – allow Facebook to make the postings available for judicial review in chambers. The federal Stored Communications Act allows for such disclosure if the individual party agrees to it, if it is requested by law enforcement agencies investigating a crime or by court orders in ongoing criminal investigations.

Read more in the Sacramento Bee.

What I don’t quite understand is how you can order someone to consent to something to qualify for an exception under the law. If you’ve ordered them to sign a consent form under threat of contempt of court, jail, or fine, are they really truly consenting within the spirit of the law, if not the letter? How is this not “waive your rights or we’ll waive your freedom?”

Category: CourtOnline

Post navigation

← Ca: ‘Passive consent’ triggers complaint
Is a judge’s order an end-run around the Stored Communications Act and the Fourth Amendment? →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: [email protected]

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • ARC sells airline ticket records to ICE and others
  • Clothing Retailer, Todd Snyder, Inc., Settles CPPA Allegations Regarding California Consumer Privacy Act Violations
  • US Customs and Border Protection Plans to Photograph Everyone Exiting the US by Car
  • Google agrees to pay Texas $1.4 billion data privacy settlement
  • The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech
  • Florida bill requiring encryption backdoors for social media accounts has failed
  • Apple Siri Eavesdropping Payout Deadline Confirmed—How To Make A Claim

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • Department of Justice says Berkeley Research Group data breach may have exposed information on diocesan sex abuse survivors
  • Masimo Manufacturing Facilities Hit by Cyberattack
  • Education giant Pearson hit by cyberattack exposing customer data
  • Star Health hacker claims sending bullets, threats to top executives: Reports
  • Nova Scotia Power hit by cyberattack, critical infrastructure targeted, no outages reported
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.