Court Proceedings In Kansas

This past Wednesday, in Topeka, Kansas, a young man named Austin Tabor was, I repeat, WAS, on trial for the murder of another young man, Matthew Mitchell, in October of 2010. While the courthouse allows people to take cell phones, and other odds and ends, such as camaras inside, it is still a distinct no-no to take pictures of certain individuals, such as jury members, during a trial. The judge in this case reiterated the warning to everyone, but a reporter from the Topeka Capitol Journal went ahead and snapped a shot of the backs of a couple of people's heads, the silluette of a jury member beside the window, and the tops of a couple of jury members' heads. She tweeted this image to her employers, who went ahead and published it online. Later in the day, the judge was sent a message concerning the contempt of her orders, and she declared a mistrial.

Judging from the comments that have been printed from readers of the Topeka Capitol Journal, it would seem that a lot of Kansans do not understand why this mistake was so costly and unprofessional. Not only does a new court date have to be set amid courthouse furloughs designed to save money, but a new jury has to be seated. Also, the defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, and the victim's family has a right to see justice. The journalist interferred with those things when she defied the judge's order to leave the jury unphotographed and unidentified.

The above situation is sad enough, but here is something even more troubling; it's a comment from a reader of one of the stories about this journalist and her published twitter photo. Here it is:

"I can say that the reporter's mistake wasn't the first mistake made in the trial that could have possibly caused a mistrial. The victim's mother disregarded instructions given to the jury pool before we watched the official jury video. We were instructed to not take notes unless instructed. She also ignored the judge's instructions to all persons not in the jury pool to leave the room. As each potential juror was called, she recorded that person's name in her small 4x6 notebook. When a person was dismissed for cause, she crossed out that persons name and recorded the name of the replacement. And even though the prosecutor's witness list was part of the filing prior to jury selection, she also recorded the names on that list. She left before lunch when a male came in to the courtroom and signalled her. As she was leaving, even the judge asked her if she was part of the pool and she said no. It may not seem to some as a big deal, but if you knew that a member of the victim's family recorded your name in a notebook, you would probably feel intimidated on some levels."

The judge told everyone not in the jury pool to leave! Instead, one person thought it would be okay to disregard the judge and stay! What was she going to do with all of the names of chosen jury members? Kill them, if they did not return the verdict she desired? Perhaps the errant journalist saved a life by necessitating a mistrial.