Juror in Contempt of Court for Facebook Exchanges with Defendant
A juror has admitted charges of contempt of court for contacting a defendant in a trial by Facebook.
Jury member Joanne Fraill, 40, contacted defendant Jamie Sewart, 34, during a $9.8 million trial through her Facebook account. When Fraill’s actions were revealed the judge in the case immediately discharged the jury, and the case collapsed.
The incident happened in Manchester, England, and Fraill now could face up to two years in prison, which is the maximum penalty under English law for contempt of court.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Fraill has admitted that she made contact with Sewart discussing the case while the jury's deliberations were ongoing. She also admitted to sharing information about the jury’s deliberations on the social networking tool.
It was also found that Fraill had conducted internet research on her cell phone into one of the defendants she was trying as a jury member.
The incident came to light in August last year when the criminal trial was stopped as Sewart's solicitor informed the court that his client and Fraill had been in contact by Facebook.
The contact was first made by Fraill after she searched Facebook for Sewart and messaged him saying: “You should know me - I've cried with you enough.”
She also later revealed sympathy to the defendant saying: “Can't believe they had u on remand”.
They went on to discuss the trial and jury deliberations in depth, and Fraill eventually messaged him revealing her delight that he was being found not guilty: “At least then yer are home n dry”.
Sewart responded: “Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud of kissed u all i would of done ha ha.”
Fraill concluded: “Keep in touch and I'll get u a nice pressie...”
Defending Fraill in court this week Peter Wright QC, explained to the court that Fraill was terrified at the prospect of prison and was distraught at her actions. He explained that she had “lost her senses” in carrying out her correspondence on Facebook.
Wright said, “Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or designed by her to subvert the trial process, although it is conceded that that was an inevitable consequence of it.”
