It'd be interesting if there were cameras, but the NYC ness of it all would make it too dramatic and I don't think we could handle it. So, all this annoying reporting where people try to describe what happened is fine I guess.
I want to claim I won't pay attention but... yeah. That's not happening. This month is ruined.
@futurebird@godofbiscuits I’m not sure it’s even illegal. If you have a contract with a data broker, you can get a staggering amount of information on any American who has a credit card, subscribes to a newspaper, etc.
It's absolutely illegal for lawyers to search any data that are not public. And that's public posts and media, but I don't think they'll limit to that.
@godofbiscuits@futurebird All of them have already been identified according to reports. As we the public have verbatim searchable social media posts, places of employment, etc, the court has made it too easy for them to be identified.
@PeterLG@godofbiscuits@futurebird Yeah, fair point. I know what you mean/ anticipated that if anyone read my post, but was trying to be succinct. I hate to refer you to twitter, but to be brief, if you tweet see southpaw on twitter. (Here, see Laffy). It makes sense too, given the verbatim social media posts & workplaces indicated in public transcripts. I have worried from the start about implicit identification. I think these jurors are brave.
Oh that's right! They mentioned some of the text from one of the social media posts of one of the jurors. That was a bad move!
It's not too late to do this over and put them in a hotel. I understand that the charge isn't "hefty" enough to merit sequestering generally but the public interest and the inevitability that someone will meddle means that no one should have a CLUE who is on the jury.
Add comment