No new trial over juror's Twittering

A juror who send Twitter messages during and after a trial in February did not break any rules, and a new trial is not necessary, a judge ruled Friday.

Defendants who lost a $12.6 million lawsuit filed a motion for a new trial on March 12 claiming that "juror Johnathan" Powell was not a fair and impartial juror because he communicated online about the trial using Twitter and conducted research about being a juror.

Twitter is an online social networking and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read other users' updates, also called "tweets," which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.

Powell testified in a hearing Friday afternoon before 4th Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay that he used his cell phone to send tweets to his Twitter account two times during the trial- once to say he'd been picked as a juror and a second time to remark about the french fries he had for lunch.

He made two other tweets about the case after the trial was over - that he "just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of someone else's money" and that no one should buy products from Stoam Industries, one of the defendants, "now that their wallet is 12M [dollars] lighter."

Powell did not research the case or the company, but he looked up information about being a juror because he was excited about serving.

"There's nothing wrong about being excited about being a juror. That's probably the exception - not the rule," Lindsay said.

Powell testified that he had his laptop with him during the trial but he never used it. He said he kept his phone, which does not connect to the Internet, turned off while he was in the courtroom.

Russell Wright and Stoam lost the lawsuit and now face judgments of $8.1 million for Mark Deihl and $4.5 million for William Nystrom. Both invested in Wright's company, which makes a product that it claims has the insulation quality of foam with the strength of steel.

Lindsay also ruled that the plaintiffs could not argue that Powell was not an impartial juror because neither Wright nor his attorney appeared for trial to question potential witnesses. Even if they had, there was no evidence that Powell was prejudiced or biased against Wright or Stoam, he said.

Wright's attorney argued Friday that Powell's Twitter posts about plans to "rock the jury" and a comment about "two angry men" showed bias. Both were made before Powell was picked as a juror.

Powell testified that his plans to "rock the jury" meant that he wanted to be a good juror.

"That's just the language of today," Lindsay said. "Someone my age may have said I want to find out how to be a good juror."

The comment about two angry jurors was a reference to the movie "12 Angry Men," which is about a jury's deliberation, Powell said.

Powell said in an interview after the hearing that he felt vindicated. He'd said all along that he followed the judge's instructions. He's been surprised by the media's widespread interest in this case.

"The courts are just going to have to catch up with the technology," Powell said.