Condemned inmate gets new trial after juror tweet
Court Alerts
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a death row inmate's murder conviction and said he deserves a new trial because one juror slept and another tweeted during court proceedings.
Erickson Dimas-Martinez's attorneys had appealed his 2010 murder conviction because the juror sent the tweets despite the judge's instruction not to post on the Internet or communicate with anyone about the case. The lawyers also complained that another juror slept.
In one tweet, juror Randy Franco wrote: "Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken...We each define the great line." Less than an hour before the jury announced its verdict, he tweeted: "It's over."
Other tweets by Franco made passing references to the trial, with posts such as, "the coffee sucks here" and "Court. Day 5. Here we go again."
The court said Franco, known as Juror 2 in court documents, violated general instructions to not discuss the case.
Related listings
-
Court: Assange can continue extradition fight
Court Alerts 12/05/2011A British court Monday gave WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange permission to continue his legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crimes allegations. The decision means Assange does not face immediate deportation. British judges said Assan...
-
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Court Alerts 12/03/2011Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Pain Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, is on behalf of a class co...
-
Pa. capital takeover challenged in federal court
Court Alerts 12/02/2011The state takeover of Pennsylvania's financially troubled capital city received a fresh challenge Thursday, as three Harrisburg residents filed a federal lawsuit calling it an unconstitutional violation of their rights and asking for it to be stopped...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.