What the Fumo juror tells us about social media
The gap in knowing the answer to “Why Facebook?” between those who use social networking and those who don’t is painfully illustrated in the chambers discussion between the juror who tweeted and updated his status on Facebook during the Fumo corruption trial. Juror Eric Wuest, put on the spot by the judge and defense attorneys, said Facebook (endearingly called “Facepage” by the judge for the first several minutes) was a journal for his thoughts, having no target audience and seeking no direct replies. Those of us who have used social networking know that he’s right: very often we will share our state of mind, an experience of the day or our feelings for others without regard for who will or might read them. Occasionally such posts are a call for action, response or even for help, but these are the exception rather than the norm. Hearing a defense attorney suggest that the Facebook update “Eric Wuest is thinking ‘what if?’” was somehow intended for the audience of the 600,000+ members of Philly’s FB network and that it was somehow identifiably connected to the Fumo trial is laughable.
It’s clear from what Wuest says that he’s not a blogger (although he did have an out-of-date anonymous blog (for which his profile has been hidden since I first looked on 3/17 and where he identified himself as pscyho, all in good fun)) and doesn’t use social media very often. In fact, he sounds like an average, relatively passive user, citing only a handful of Twitter followers and noting that the “game” of Facebook is to friend anyone who you might recognize, just to see who can get the most. He also said the blogs he reads are “joke blogs,” with animals doing funny things or people in strange situations. My heart broke a little for him a little knowing that saying “Oh, nothing related to the case, it’s just FAILblog and I can has Cheezburger!” would get him nowhere with the crowd in the judge’s chambers.
In the end, luckily, justice prevailed. Wuest was escorted out of the room after defending his innocuous posts and the judge and attorneys debated Wuest’s credibility as well as the probability of mistrail-level risks involved with such internet use by a deliberating juror. For the record, the state’s attorney advised, “[Using Facebook like this is] a new thing for us older people, but it’s what everyone is doing.” In response the judge said, “And they’re doing it to a ridiculous extreme…No doubt this is a very important issue.” Speaking to the nature of Wuest’s answers during the discussion, the judge said Wuest was “Just like any other witness. Some of the answers might not be totally accurate…[But to warrant a mistrial] there has to be a prejudicial aspect to this.” He continued to say that Wuest was just the kind of juror you want: one conscientious guy, “more aware of [his duties] than I would ever imagine a juror being” and trying to do the right thing. The judge denied the defense’s motion to remove Wuest from the jury and Wuest continued in the deliberations.