Juror Goes to Jail for Texting

03 May 2013 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

A juror was held in contempt of court for texting during a trial in violation of standard jury instructions requiring the jury “to pay close attention to all of the witnesses.” On April 16, 2013 Marion County Oregon Judge Dennis Graves sentenced 26 year old Benjamin Kohler to jail for contempt for 2 days for texting while a witness was testifying about the armed robbery defendant.

The Salem Statesman Journal reported that Mr. Kohler was caught texting when the courtroom lights were dimmed to allow a witness to show a video interview with the defendant. With the lights dimmed the glow from Mr. Kohler’s cell phone was apparent so the Judge immediately dismissed all the jurors from the courtroom except Mr. Kohler whom the Judge declared in contempt.

The Court Report included Judge Graves’ courtroom statement to Mr. Kohler that included his message to other jurors to pay attention:

The duty to serve as a juror must be taken very seriously. Every juror has the responsibility to devote his entire attention to the witnesses and evidence being presented. In this case, Mr. Kohler failed to meet his obligations and failed to honor the direction of this court. My hope is that he will use his time in jail to reflect upon his behavior.

The content of Mr. Kohler texting was not made public so it likely irrelevant since the Judge’s admonish was only paying attention not texting about the defendant or facts in the trial. Ultimately Mr. Kohler only spent only one day in jail for contempt, and the defendant was convicted.

Surely we will see more headlines about juror texting given its volume and prevalence, but this case may be different since Mr. Kohler was in contempt for not paying attention to a witness which is extreme. How can Judges know if any other juror is paying attention?

 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services

Insights

The DOL Tries to Say Goodbye—And Seriously, We Mean It—to the 80/20 Rule for Tipped Employees
21 October 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
To Stalk or Not to Stalk . . . That Is the Question – Using Social Media for Applicant Review
21 October 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
New Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Updates Seeks Examination Predictability
21 October 2019
Legal News: Intellectual Property
Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.