h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On Social media recently, someone I know posted a comment on a thread that set me thinking.

A video, posted on a steaming website, had been posted on social media. It had around 450,000 viewing.

The essence of the video and social media thread was about a person, posing as a teen, being arrested for grooming a pre-teen to get that person to coerce a friend into partaking in a threesome.

I cannot comment on the facts behind the video, or even if it is factual, only that the name and town of the person being arrested, and the crime stated.

Subsequently there has been a huge response about what should happen to this person. Some of these are quite explicit, even including death threats.

My question is, as this has not gone to trial yet, could the fact that so much has been posted on social media, pre-trial, could a good lawyer get the case dropped on the grounds that he could not get a fair trial, due to the coverage and comments on social media.

As I understand normal media are restricted on what they can report in case they jeopardise the case. Maybe the lawyer could use the grounds of him having already been tried by social media?

Or others I may have missed? Is this one of the downsides of social media?

I am not interested in the basis of the case, just whether social media, and postings on such, could be used in law to convict, acquit or even have a case thrown out, before or during the case being heard?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

MMF

Having served on at least half a dozen juries in the the US, both Federal and State, I do not think that would be a problem here. The selection process includes voir dire questioning of the perspective panel by the lawyers for both the prosecution and defence under penalty of perjury (which can result in jail time if you are untruthful). One of the questions is always 'Do you know anything about this case?' No matter how viral social media postings might be, it is highly unlikely that a significant portion of any jury panel will have read them.

F S

Having never been called, or served, as a juror was another reason for posting.

It was also based on a number of National media reports where social media had been used to name individuals during cases. Also information being posted on social media being used in court cases.

Thanks for the input.

MMF

I'm interested in knowing why it was a "steaming" website.

In this specific case, no, it should not be dropped. On the basis of the bare facts, this person sounds like a dangerous sexual predator.

From the point of social media, I shouldn't think that this should be a problem either. 450,000 views (presumably) world-wide, really isn't so many. Plenty will be multiple viewing by the same person. A fair number will be partial viewings.

I suspect that video posted on the net would be usable evidence too, viewed or not.

Sadly, there seems to be a trend towards posting to the net (FB, YT etc) when the first and only appropriate response would be to pass to police. I have encountered several instances over the last couple of months where there has been local speculation about events which has been wrong.

PP.

Allegedly the Police were interviewing the suspect which is the video, the reason why I cannot verify it's veracity as I do not believe the Police would investigate a suspect, outside the home, and allow it to be made available to social media , but I am using this as a test case to see if it would be sufficient to be used to get the charge dropped, bearing in mind the person has not been tried so, based as you say, on the bare facts, it is not proven whether he is or is not a dangerous sexual predator.

PP, you posted >>On the basis of the bare facts, this person sounds like a dangerous sexual predator.<< which is the cornerstone of my concern as it seems that you have already prejudged, solely on what has been posted, not on evidence that could be bought before the court and jury, or whether the jury would be swayed.

As to how many viewed locally, Nationally or worldwide, or whether viewers watched more than once or solely out of interest, I guess only the social media organisation has that information. But you put fair points. I can only counter that a petition to Government, only requires 100,000 signatures for a question to be raised in the House...


However, I am not judge or jury which is why I'm interested in researchers' viewpoints.

MMF

o/`

But when jurors are chosen, one of the questions they are asked is whether they have seen anything that could prejudice their verdict. perhaps hardly any potential jurors will have seen the video online.

Keeping this on a very general level, and with no experience of anything like this, I would think that the situation is as follows:

The jurors may have seen the video - after all, when they are called up, they don't know what the case will be.

However, they should not have seen the comments on the video. As the video itself may be shown in court anyway, the contents of it can still be viewed objectively. But the comments and threads on the subject will contain opinions which may sway the jurors' thoughts before they are called to give a verdict.

Is there legislation on this sort of thing already with specific reference to social media or is the conventional legislation able to cover it?

>On the basis of the bare facts, this person sounds like a dangerous sexual predator.>

I did and that is why the case should not be dropped. The evidence should be tested in a court. If the evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny (scrutiny of evidence is what a court is for), then there will be a not guilty verdict.

The chance of a jury (if it becomes a jury trial) being prejudiced by social media coverage so small (ok there is debate to be had there) is slim and jurours can be disquaalified.

This is how small 450,00 views is:-

Sweet Sisters - Hit the Road Jack - 1,699,093 views (I'm probably 4 of them)

Steven Fry - The importance of unbelief - 978,900 (I'm not one of them)

Online jazz drumming lesson - 456,180 (I WILL be one of them).

These three picked at random selecting the bottom link on each page.

PP.