by FERN SHEN
Sheila Dixon’s shopping sprees with gift cards may have been her downfall, but now it seems a juror’s 2006 shopping spree (with $324 provided by the city) may be the Baltimore mayor’s salvation.
Dixon’s lawyers are considering asking for a mistrial in part because of a story the Baltimore Sun unearthed from their own archives showing that juror Shawana Tyler won a sweepstakes sponsored by a city agency promoting shopping in city neighborhoods.
News that jurors were Facebooking with each other during the trial and the latest revelation that Tyler failed to disclose her attendance at the sweepstakes event (which also featured Dixon and a key witness in the trial) are giving Dixon’s lawyers new fodder for an appeal of her conviction Tuesday.
The reports are also reinforcing two of the sub-themes that emerged from the trial: that social newtworking is posing new challenges for the legal system — and that too much shopping can bring a world of trouble.
The 11/30/06 story about the Highlandtown event Tyler attended was headlined “Malls Shmallls — try Main St..” It was sponsored by Baltimore Main Streets, a program created by the city’s Baltimore Development Corporation and headed by former Dixon staffer Mary Pat Fannon, a witness in the trial.
Then-City Council president Dixon and Fannon attended the event -they are shown, in the same frame with Tyler, in never-before-published photos of the event shot by a Sun photographer that day. (Tyler went on a two-minute shopping spree at a Highlandtown grocery store, as a result of winning the random drawing, the story says.)
Tyler told the Sun recently that she doesn’t remember either Fannon or Dixon being at the event, which she thought was sponsored byt he supermarket offering the prize. Experts say Tyler’s contact with Fannon could form a strong basis for mistrial. During jury selection, Tyler apparently never mentioned the contact or the prize, facts which could arguably have biased her and prompted either side to keep her off the jury.
It’s hard to say how good a case the defense can make based on the new information about Tyler. A prosecution witness, Fannon acknowledged under questioning that her family income exceeds a half million dollars and testified that Dixon gave her a Toys r Us gift card, which prosecutors said was among those intended for charity. Fannon’s testimony did not seem to have made much of an impression on any of the jurors who have spoken publicly since the trial ended — none of them brought it up, when asked by reporters what drove their decision.
Jurors “friended” each other — and chatted
Another angle Dixon’s lawyers may use to seek mistrial is the fact that the jurors were on the social networking site Facebook for much of the trial: bonding, yukking it up and discussing meeting up in person. Judge Dennis M. Sweeney had wanrned them at the start of the trial to stay off the Internet.
Most of the Facebook conversations among them appear pretty innocuous: comparing Thanksgiving plans and such:. In fact, some of their comments serve mainly to confirm the unflattering impression of them advanced by snarky parodists on Twitter.
“We should have stayed at our last job for another week..lol…the pay wasnt bad and we got free meals…..be careful what u wish for!!!!!!” wrote Juror No. 6, Shiron Davis, day after the trial.
Other comments may prove more significant as defense examples of improper behavior. A non-juror named “Al,” for instance, made a Facebook comment — before the jurors had reached their verdict — that read “not guilty.”
Juror Shiron Davis replied “NO AL GUILTY AS HELL….SORRY.”
Whether or not the facebooking will give Dixon a tool to beat back her conviction, it clearly sends a signal to the Maryland judiciary that they’d better get up to speed Facebook, along with Twitter and all forms of social networking.




