This past summer I was particularly active on a long series dealing with phony testimony, quickie medical exams, and phony signatures.
But almost nothing from me recently.
So goes the cycle of blogging (and twittering). As I may have mentioned before, I don’t like to blog while on trial, and I’ve been on trial. I appeared on September 3rd to pick a jury and that was it for me, even though we didn’t open until a week later.
There are two reasons to stop blogging. First, when I get home from court I’m obsessed about the next day (and the day after that…) and catching up on office stuff. Also, I have a family I’d like to at least kiss hello. So lack of time comes home to roost, and blogging is the lowest of my priorities.
But more importantly, I don’t want to give even the appearance of impropriety to my jurors. Even if I write about things other than the trial they could still be related. Like writing about dishonest experts, for instance, a subject that came up a few times on my recent visit inside the courtroom well.
No matter how many times a judge may warn jurors not to look stuff up, they still might. Some lawyers might see this as a sly way to influence a juror with subtle messages. I see it as a danger zone where a juror might be offended.
Criminal defense lawyers, perhaps, have an easier go at this. They don’t have the burden of proof. The risk of me offending one out of six jurors when I need a 5/6 verdict is more significant than the risk of offending one juror when the other side needs a 12/12 verdict. Such is life.
I’m here and I’m back, But I never really left.