Logo
  • Home
  • Ask
  • Teen Help Network
  • About
    • About Judge Tom
    • Books
    • FAQs
    • Press Room
  • Your Rights
    • Crime and Punishment
    • Student Rights at School
    • You and Your Body
    • You and the Internet
    • Juvenile Justice System
    • LGBT Youth Rights
    • More Categories
  • Blog
  • Get Help
    • Videos
    • A Teenager’s Guide to Juvenile Court
    • Books
    • Research & Resources
  • Newsletter Signup

 

Q&A

Know your rights! Youth justice and juvenile law answers.

Askthejudge.info features regular updates from the news, important decisions from the nation′s courts, and online discussions with Judge Tom. Find out everything you need to know about youth rights, juvenile law and juvenile justice. AsktheJudge – Empowering youth one question at a time.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this site is made available to the general public and is not intended to serve as legal advice.You should consult a trained legal professional in your area for questions you may have about the laws affecting juveniles or any legal interpretations.

Copyright, 2014
Logo
October 10, 2011
Judge Tom
Blog
2

Going online may constitute contempt of court

PreviousNext

Jamie Sewart was on trial in England charged with conspiracy to supply drugs. During her trial, one of the jurors contacted her on Facebook. The juror, 40-year-old Joanne Fraill, also used the Internet to search for information about Sewart’s boyfriend.

At some point during the trial, Sewart told her attorney about her conversation with Fraill. This led to contempt of court proceedings against both Sewart and Fraill. Juries are routinely instructed by the judge to stay off all digital devices including social networking sites, and not conduct any research on parties or witnesses. A violation can cause a mistrial resulting in additional expense and the possibility of injustice to all or some of the parties.

Sewart was acquitted of the drug charge, but found in contempt for her contact with Fraill during her trial. Fraill immediately admitted what she had done and apologized to the court. However, her direct violation of the court’s admonition about the Internet and inappropriate use led the judge to comment that misuse of the Internet by a juror was always “a most serious irregularity.” In June, 2011, Fraill was sentenced to eight months in jail. She was led out of the courtroom to begin her sentence.

Juror Joanne Fraill

The court considered Fraill’s empathy for Sewart who had spent fourteen months in jail awaiting trial and away from her baby. Fraill is the mother of three who expressed concern over Sewart’s situation.

Check out Hadley Jon’s story involving a juror’s use of Facebook during trial.

Share this
Judge Tom

The Author Judge Tom

Judge Tom is the founder and moderator of AsktheJudge.info. He is a retired juvenile judge and spent 23 years on the bench. He has written several books for lawyers and judges as well as teens and parents including 'Teen Cyberbullying Investigated' (Free Spirit Publishing) and 'Every Vote Matters: the Power of Your Voice, from Student Elections to the Supreme Court' (Free Spirit Publishing). In 2020, the American Bar Association published "Cyberbullying Law," the nation's first case-law book written for lawyers, judges and law students. When he's not answering teens' questions, Judge Tom volunteers with the American Red Cross and can be found hiking, traveling and reading.

Find great resources in our

Teen Help Network


Leave A Comment Cancel reply

2 Comments

  • Tulsa Divorce Lawyers
    October 11, 2011 9:44 am count( 0 )

    Technically, legally speaking that juror was ordered to have ‘no contact’ with any of the parties or witnesses involved in the case. When the juror want on line and contacted the defendant, the juror violated the judge’s order which is punishable as ‘contempt of court’.