LITTLE ROCK — The state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a death-row inmate’s murder conviction because of jurors who tweeted and slept during his trial.
The high court also said that because of changing technology, it is time to consider whether jurors should continue to be allowed access to mobile phones during trials.
The Supreme Court ordered a new trial in Benton County Circuit Court for Erickson Dimas-Martinez in the Dec. 30, 2006, shooting death of 17-year-old Derrick Jefferson in Springdale. Dimas-Martinez had been sentenced to death for capital murder and life in prison for aggravated robbery.
An attorney for Dimas-Martinez, now 26, said last month in oral arguments before the Supreme Court that the trial judge should have dismissed a juror who sent messages via Twitter from the jury box and the deliberation room during the trial.
The trial judge instructed jurors at the start of the trial not to tweet about the case and not to discuss the case with anyone. During the sentencing phase, a juror tweeted, “Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken. We each define the great line.”
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Dimas-Martinez’s trial lawyer told the judge about the tweet, and the judge questioned the juror. The juror explained that he was preparing himself to make a decision about the death penalty and was making a reference to the album “Define the Great Line” by the band Underoath.
The juror said he had not revealed any particulars of the case. Over the defense attorney’s objection, the judge did not strike the juror.
The juror continued to send tweets after being questioned by the judge. Among them was the tweet “It is over,” sent nearly an hour before the jury announced it had reached a verdict.
In its unanimous opinion reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court said the tweets were a public discussion of the case, in violation of the judge’s instructions.
“This court has recognized the importance that jurors not be allowed to post musings, thoughts or any other information about trials on any online forums,” Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion. “The possibility for prejudice is simply too high. Such a fact is underscored in this case, as appellant points out, because one of the juror’s Twitter followers was a reporter.”
Corbin wrote that the tweet “it’s over” gave the media advance notice that the jury had completed deliberations, and “this is simply unacceptable.”
Corbin also said the court would ask the Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice to consider whether jurors’ access to mobile phones should be limited during trials.
“Most mobile phones now allow instant access to a myriad of information,” Corbin wrote in the opinion. “Not only can jurors access Facebook, Twitter or other social media sites, but they can also access news sites that might have information about a case. There is also the possibility that a juror could conduct research about many aspects of a case.”
In 2009, lawyers for the building materials company Stoam Holdings sought to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against the company in a civil suit because of a Washington County juror’s tweets. The juror tweeted during the trial, “Nobody buy Stoam. Its (sic) bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.”
A Washington County circuit judge dismissed the appeal.
Dimas-Martinez’s appeal lawyer also argued last month that a juror who was caught apparently sleeping in the jury box while evidence was being presented should have been removed. An attorney for the state argued that the juror had heard “the vast majority of the evidence.”
The Supreme Court said Thursday the juror should have been removed.
“Contrary to the state’s position at oral argument of this matter, it is not acceptable for a juror to doze off as long as the juror hears the ‘vast majority’ of the evidence,” Corbin wrote in the court’s opinion.
The court said that because it reversed the conviction on grounds of jury misconduct, it would not consider an argument by Dimas-Martinez’s lawyer that the judge erred when he told the jury that the case automatically would be appealed to the Supreme Court.