'Juror' Blog Posts During and After Trial Lead to Evidentiary Hearing (U.S. v. Mark Zimny)
In U.S. v. Mark Zimny, a jury found the defendant, Mark J. Zimny (Zimny), guilty of five counts of wire fraud, five counts of engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, two counts of filing false tax returns, and one count of bank fraud. Zimny appealled, raising several arguments. The First Court of Appeals addressed only one of those arguments: that the district court's inquiry into Zimny's claims of juror misconduct (blogging) was inadequate. The court agreed with Zimny and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, leaving for another day the other issues that Zimny raised.
Here is the alleged juror post that most directly led to the evidentiary hearing
Boy this is getting comical. I've been following it on and off, and was also on the jury. Mama June, and those who were there know what I'm talking about, was spouting about the "shots in the dark" blog since day one. Its [sic] why she conveniently got 'sick' and didn't finish her service. Several other jurors told her to stfu and got annoyed. '[I]diot' doesent [sic] describe the half of it.
According to the First Circuit Court of Appeals,
...the additional juror comment raised a colorable claim of juror misconduct: that, contrary to Juror No. 8's testimony, she discussed the blog post with other jurors.