Sacto 9-1-1

By Andy Furillo
afurillo@sacbee.com

A Sacramento judge held off today in taking action against Facebook over the postings of a juror during a trial last year in which several reputed street gang members were convicted.

Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny, however, directed some pointed questions at the attorney who represented the social networking company in a hearing that covered several issues, including whether Facebook should be held in contempt for not responding to two court orders to turn over the postings.

McGregor Scott, the lawyer who represented Facebook, said the Palo Alto firm receives "thousands" of subpoenas and that it was an "oversight" that it did not respond to the court orders.

Kenny said he could understand Facebook failing to respond to one court order. But the judge suggested that the "double oversight" in the Sacramento case reflects a problem in Facebook's internal process on how it handles subpoenas.

Scott said he was at a loss to explain why it happened twice.

The company was subpoenaed by defense lawyers for the accused members of the Killa Mobb gang in Sacramento, who were convicted in the beating of a man at a gas station near the Arden Fair Mall on Halloween Night 2008.

After the convictions, the defense attorneys learned that one of the jurors had been posting some of his thoughts about case during the trial on his Facebook page.

The lawyers then subpoenaed Facebook to retrieve the juror's postings as well as correspondence he received from his friends that may have involved the trial.

Scott said the company is precluded by 1986 Stored Communications Act from supplying the postings but that Facebook can turn them over with the consent of the juror. The law was designed to protect the privacy of internet users.

Mike Wise, the defense lawyer who has taken lead on the subpoenas, said the law is unconstitutional if it blocks criminal defendants from obtaining information that might be relevant to their cases.

In today's hearing, Kenny put over any ruling on the juror's postings, his order to show cause on why Facebook should not be held in contempt and the defendants' motion for a new trial. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Feb. 4.

Kenny, however, did order that a lawyer be appointed for the juror whose postings have become an issue.

Call The Bee's Andy Furillo, (916) 321-1141.

About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "report abuse" button to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand. If you want to discuss an issue with a specific user, click on his profile name and send him a direct message.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "report abuse" button to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them, but you may ask our staff to retract one of your comments by sending an email to feedback@sacbee.com. Again, make sure you note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us your profile name.

hide comments
blog comments powered by Disqus


About Sacto 9-1-1

Sacto 9-1-1 is a blog on crime and emergency services news in the Sacramento region.

Send feedback on Sacto 9-1-1 to Assistant Metro Editor Anthony Sorci at asorci@sacbee.com

Subscribe to Breaking News Alerts

FOLLOW US | Get more from sacbee.com | Follow us on Twitter | Become a fan on Facebook | Get news in your inbox | View our mobile versions | e-edition: Print edition online | What our bloggers are saying

Sacto 9-1-1 Q&A

Q: What happened with the case regarding Marc McCormick? He was accused of videotaping a woman in her home and was arrested. He lives in my neighborhood and I see him all the time. Were charges dropped?


A: According to Sacramento Superior Court online records, misdemeanor charges have been filed against Mark William McCormick, alleging that he used a camcorder or other instrument to view an individual in a place where there was an expectation of privacy, trespassing and peeping.

His next court date is June 4.

According to Sacramento police logs, McCormick, 40, was arrested March 8 after the victim reported that a friend had entered her home without her knowledge to secretly videotape her.


715 questions answered | Submit a question

May 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Monthly Archives


Kim Minugh on Twitter

Follow "Kim_Minugh" on Twitter

Local Agencies on Twitter

Categories