A New Hampshire case involving a juror who posted entries about court duty on his blog has raised the issue of juror blogging, which legal experts said may soon become a regular part of voir dire and jury instructions.
The case involves Stephen Goupil, who was convicted in 2005 of five counts of sexual assault and one count of theft. New Hampshire v. Goupil, No. 2005-444. (N.H.).
The juror foreman, Scott Vachon, made an entry in his blog in early 2005 four days before jury selection in which he said he would have to "listen to the local riff-raff try and convince me of their innocence," according to court documents.
Once seated on the jury but before the start of the trial, Vachon also wrote that he was surprised he was chosen due his "strong beliefs" about the police and God, according to documents.
Mark Sisti of Sisti Law Offices in Chichester, N.H., who represented the defendant, said he learned about the blog during jury deliberations shortly before the verdict, thanks to a lawyer who was the jury foreman's neighbor. Sisti alleged that the blog showed that the juror was biased against criminal defendants and that a new trial should take place.
Once informed of the blog, the judge agreed to question the jurors but did not throw out the guilty verdict. The New Hampshire Supreme Court then upheld the verdict in September, but Sisti said he has filed a habeas corpus petition in a federal district court.
Details here from the National Law Journal.