Contact with jurors draws warning

Image by Whistling in the Dark via Flickr

Last weekend, I checked the telephone book and found listings for six of the eight jurors who heard my age-discrimination lawsuit in Superior Court and returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including North Jersey Media Group.


I left messages on answering machines, but reached only one of them. He hung up on me. A second juror's husband said she was upset by my message, and didn't want to talk. A woman who sounded like the mother of a third juror said she didn't know when he would be returning.

I was more interested in their interpretation of the evidence I had presented than in their deliberations.

When I covered state and federal courts in New Jersey as a reporter, I recall contacting jurors after trials or interviewing them on courthouse steps. But now, one of the jurors in my case was "upset" and wrote a letter to the judge. The judge then informed me in a letter faxed and mailed to my home that a court rule barred me -- a party to a lawsuit -- from contacting jurors without his permission. He asked me to come to court.
 
During a break in another jury trial today, Judge Joseph S. Conte ordered me to refrain from any further contact with jurors or face contempt of court charges. I said I was totally unaware of the rule. He said that reporters in New Jersey also are barred from contacting jurors.

NJMG's hired gun ($300 to $400 an hour) -- attorney Samuel J. Samaro, head of the employment practice at Pashman Stein in Hackensack -- also was in court. He continued his complaints about the "Eye on The Record" blog, which he used against me during the trial.

Samaro informed the judge that I had been blogging about the trial, and "blamed" him and the jurors for the unfavorable outcome April 9. He said I continued to use the blog "to punish" people I didn't like.  He also objected to my listing jurors' hometowns and occupations I gleaned in open court.

I replied that I was reporting what happened at a public trial, and didn't blame anyone for what happened. However, I did say in this blog I disagree with rulings that allowed Samaro to present evidence I felt was unduly prejudicial -- as he mounted a slash-and-burn defense that put me -- the pro se plaintiff -- on trial.


Samaro gives the impression he has never read a newspaper, and knows nothing of satire and critical journalism. He seems genuinely offended by my blog, and my criticism of The Record's editors and owners. He also portrays himself as a klutz when it comes to maintaining an automobile, and told me he hates to eat healthy. He certainly looks it.