Your Social Media Law Glossary

Social media, as an adjunct of (or 21st Century substitute for) back fence conversations, chance front porch encounters and coffee talks, is abuzz with all manner of discussion about the latest of just about everything. A blog about the Presidents latest (gaff, prevarication, foot-in-mouth...fill in your favorite term) on the world stage would be stale and superseded before I got finished proofing it. Let's talk law.

I know. Groan. My only intent here is to provide a balanced, non-partisan and objective glossary of legal terms to help navigate the shoal waters of the news, social media and your average, everyday overheated moron holding a sign and walking about totally unsupervised. In no particular order - or, even alphabetical...

Perjury - a lie? No. Otherwise all but a few of the world's most unimaginative members would be locked up forever. Lying is as human a foible as breathing, eating and falling asleep watching paint dry...or soccer. The crime of perjury requires three things - (1) a knowingly false statement (2) made under oath (3) about a material fact. If one is missing the statement, however outrageous, it is just a garden variety misstatement that requires emergency staffing, a week of late night meetings and collective (almost universal) amnesia to unscrew.

Under Investigation - the sinister, life-altering, career enhancing (depending on your perspective) act, meaning someone, somewhere has taken an interest in you. "Hey, darlin'. What's your sign?" is, under the broadest definition possible (keep it clean), an indication someone is "under investigation." But add three letters:

FBI 

and everyone loses their minds. It's just...

I and several others assisted in a Federal warrant roundup. An FBI agent and I "cleared" a house. That is, we searched it for any hidden suspects. He was semi-jocked up, a very nice ballistic vest with rifle plates and "FBI" Velcro patches. He was lead. I noticed fairly quickly that he moved hesitantly, his hands shaking (which made the muzzle of his weapon dance). Me: "Dude, you okay?" Him: "I haven't done this since the Academy." Me: "Well, okay."

We got through it. He was a great guy, very smart and willing to do whatever needed to be done. "I'm an analyst," he said later, apologetically. "I look at data. Somebody said 'Get your body armor and let's go.' So, I fished it out from under my desk." I would probably suck at his job. My takeaway? They are just like the rest of us - well-trained, courageous, unused skills dulled with passing time, other skills very sharp...people, doing their best. Just like us. Even that guy with the weird facial expressions and the paramour (which, growing up in Pennsylvania, was how we pronounced "power mower") who testified...if you could call it that...in front of Congress. People.

Nazi - some guy behind a counter yelling "No soup for you!"

Honestly, if you get all Laptop Rangered up and start flinging this term around... Go read any one of the hundred books about WWII that discuss what those assholes were really like. Maybe that - and a nap - will help.

Indictment - a word that causes normally sensible people to assume a trial has taken place, evidence examined and something akin to guilt is assumed. "Where's there's smoke, there's fire."

Who are you, Smokey Bear? Or, Smokey the Bear. Anyway...

"In a bid to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions, (New York State) Chief Judge Sol Wachtler has proposed that the state scrap the grand jury system of bringing criminal indictments.
Wachtler, who became the state's top judge[January 1985], said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that 'by and large' they could get them to 'indict a ham sandwich.'"

There are three important things about grand juries to take into consideration before an indictment announcement makes your day. First, the evidence is presented without cross examination of witnesses. The defense is excluded from the proceedings. Everything really is taken at face value. Second, the finding only means that probable cause exists. Remember? Civics, poly sci... Anyone?

Probable cause is a threshold finding. It allows a person to be arrested, a place to be searched. Fourth Amendment stuff, for those of us into law porn. There is sufficient evidence to suggest a crime was probably committed, and the person who probably did it is probably the one probably indicted.

But, probable cause is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since everyone not found guilty (or convinced to plead guilty) is presumed innocent... Okay, this is where common sense and the niceties of the law part company. Let's say (as often happens) there is video of some dude doing something illegal. Okay, someone out there is poised to argue that nothing is irrefutable. The guy could have a twin, or a doppelganger. Well, save it.

Seriously, we are going to "presume" he is innocent, huh? In fact... The prosecution has the burden of proof at trial, to prove the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each and element of the crime or crimes alleged by introduction of admissible and credible evidence. 

Wow, that sounds complicated.

Hence... If someone is indicted, pour a drink, pull up a chair. All it means is that things might get interesting for a while. Nothing else.

I know things sound a lot more serious when it's on CNN. Breath. It's a melodrama, and the script writer already knows who plays what part. We're the only ones in the dark.