An online legal dictionary gives the general meaning of a term. For specifics, you need statutes and case law on a state-by-state basis. You can't let the general definition overrule the specific definition. DU's been given the specifics. People were kind enough in previous posts to cite the FL law and, for comparison, laws in other states.
FL law allows for unsupervised visits by family. There are requirements. So the family members had to sign a statement that they wouldn't discuss certain things. Media was still a no-no, active or passive. In this, Florida is hardly alone. While the suspicious stayed suspicious, the concensus of those who read the law and judge's orders/restrictions deemed them reasonable and what some wanted to be punishing the innocent for something they probably didn't do.
IIRC, the jurors also were allowed a call a day to catch up on family events. Again, nice statements pledging compliance with the terms of the sequester were required by the people on both ends of the phone, and the jurors had to answer certain questions daily concerning phone usage.
The jurors also get presumption of innocence. No evidence they broke sequestration, we assume they didn't. Suspicion and innuendo aren't evidence. Well, at least not of any wrongdoing by the jurors.
Oh, and notice that for B37 (?) the stakes are higher than for most. Her husband's a lawyer, and if he signed a statement under oath saying he wouldn't mention or discuss certain things and did, as an officer of the court he could be very nicely punished or even disbarred in addition to any other legal steps taken against him as a private citizen.
= new reply since forum marked as read
