Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[srw]

he: guilty of riding an ill equipped bike for the road
most likely outcome: suspended

He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

 

[classic33]

He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

News hasn't been shy in reporting/telling it either. There used to be an instruction given to stay away from any source of material, outside of the court. Has that fallen by the wayside now?

 

[Jason]

it obviously has, and many publishers have written articles about the incident and the resulting court case

 

[GrumpyGregry]

He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

then it needs to be moved, or should not have taken place in a public space.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

it obviously has, and many publishers have written articles about the incident and the resulting court case

and it is possible a juror might be tempted to find out what cyclists think about the case?

 

[Jason]

and it is possible a juror might be tempted to find out what cyclists think about the case?

anything is possible, but this argument holds water for any case that has been made public

 

[Banjo]

According to some newspaper columnists all cyclists are evil and selfish monsters so Im not putting much credence in anything I read about this in the chip wrappers.

At least he remained at the scene .
.Any comments he made immediately after the crash would have been fuelled by adrenaline .

Lets let the jury decide.Either way its a complete tragedy.

 

[Pale Rider]

and it is possible a juror might be tempted to find out what cyclists think about the case?

It is possible, but the juror will have been told by the judge making such inquiries could result in prison.

 

[Banjo]

Unless they are locked in a room with no phones for the weekend do we really believe none of the jurors will be tempted take a sneaky look on line?

 

[User33236]

He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

I suspect the curious would simply search for him by name, in which case this thread in on page 5 of a Google search.

Add the word cyclist after his name and it moves up to page 3.

Personally I would think it odd for a member of the general public to stick the word forum into a Google search on the matter.

 

[Pale Rider]

Unless they are locked in a room with no phones for the weekend do we really believe none of the jurors will be tempted take a sneaky look on line?

Funnily enough we more or less do.

Studies have shown jurors take their responsibility seriously.

They are not stupid, and well grasp the meaning of the judge's warning.

Having also been told to try the case on the evidence they hear in court, it's unlikely a juror's mind would be swayed by comment from non-entities on a cycling forum, even if the juror read it.

There has been a handful of instances of jurors playing detective, visiting the scene, or trying to gather evidence in other ways.

The juror in this link went to prison for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research

 

[swansonj]

He: currently undergoing trial, with a jury who need to come to a verdict based on what they've heard in the courtroom and who have a weekend at home where they might be tempted to start googling.

Most likely outcome: hopefully not an aborted trial because of online speculation.

This thread is on page 1 of the Google results for "Charlie Alliston forum", and is result number 3 for "Charlie Alliston cycling forum." Given the reporting, both are likely search terms. No other public discussion appears until page 3 of either search.

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

I suspect the curious would simply search for him by name, in which case this thread in on page 5 of a Google search.

Add the word cyclist after his name and it moves up to page 3.

Personally I would think it odd for a member of the general public to stick the word forum into a Google search on the matter.

Unless you are using Google on an anonymous machine in an Internet cafe, isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history, so the fact that all of us find this thread very readily when we google is (a) not surprising and (b) not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find?

(This doesn't affect the principle you are each arguing, just the evidence for it)

 

[DaveReading]

There used to be an instruction given to stay away from any source of material, outside of the court. Has that fallen by the wayside now?

The instruction to jurors typically stresses the prohibition on doing internet research about a case. I've never heard a judge tell a jury they can't read newspapers.

 

[PK99]

isn't it the case that the position of a link in the search results is influenced by your previous browsing history)

And it is surprisingly powerful, I've been googling all thing Canadian & tourist for the past few days planning a holiday. I wanted info on "cathedral grove" (an area on Vancouver Island) - I got as fat as "cat" before it gave me a direct link - it felt like it had read my thoughts.

So, as you say, what one of us might find is "...not necessarily predictive of what jurors would find."

 

[jefmcg]

We are not a quiet, private, discussion.

Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, lfgss forum is holding their discussion in a members only section.