I used my Twitter account for the first time last week while covering the Exxon verdict in Baltimore County Circuit Court. Turns out I chose to start using the “micro-blogging” site (which limits entries to 140 characters or less) just as ”tweets” in the legal process were making headlines.

Earlier this month, a federal judge allowed a reporter in Kansas to “tweet” from a federal racketeering gang trial. Lawyers were worried jurors would read the posts, but a federal judge ruled jurors are already told to avoid news accounts of their trial, and Twitter would be no exception.

Then, on Friday, an Arkansas company said it would appeal a $12.6 million verdict because a juror tweeted during the trial. One of the posts read: “I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”

The company’s lawyer said the messages demonstrate the juror “was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience.”

All of this Twitter talk makes arguments about cameras in the courtroom seem kind of quaint, don’t you think?

Stephen Snyder was denied the billion-dollar verdict he had hoped for — the first of his career — but it’s hard to feel too sorry for him. His team estimates today’s total award in this lawsuit, stemming from a five-week, 26,000-gallon gasoline leak at a Jacksonville Exxon station, at $150 million.  (I may have missed one, but it’s at least the fifth verdict above $100M of Snyder’s career.)

Still, the jury rejected claims of fraudulent concealment, which means no punitive damages, which means no billion-dollar verdict. As a result, I’ve already heard a couple people refer to this as a loss. They figure Snyder set the bar at a billion, then failed to clear it. What do you think?

A verdict – or, more accurately, 88 verdicts – will be announced at Baltimore Co. Circuit Court tomorrow morning in the billion-dollar litigation against ExxonMobil Corp.

We’ve got it covered.

For instantaneous coverage from the scene, you can follow @TDRdanny and @mddailyrecord on Twitter (or, if you’re not a Twitter user, you can simply visit their Twitter webpages here and here and refresh for updates.)

We’ll post the story on our Web site – and distribute it via email – as fast as our fingers can type.

And, we’ll have a photographer and videographer in Towson to capture multimedia.

Like I said – we’ve got it covered.

JACKIE SAUTER, Web Editor 

I don’t think James F. Sanders and Stephen L. Snyder will be exchanging holiday cards any time soon.

To be sure, the lead counsels for ExxonMobil Corp. and Jacksonville residents, respectively, have maintained a professional relationship during the five-month trial stemming from a 25,000-gallon gasoline leak in early 2006. And I have seen them exchange the occasional laugh in the courtroom during breaks.

But after butting heads so many times since October, you get the sense they’d be happy not to see one another again once the case ends.

(It should be noted the same could be said of all of the lawyers on both sides of the case, as witnessed by a courtroom scuffle that nearly erupted last month.)

I was reminded of this as Sanders began his closing argument today. Snyder, during his time before the jury, frequently called Exxon’s behavior shameful and wondered aloud how Sanders would explain certain issues the plaintiffs raised.

Sanders began his closing by laying down some ground rules — he would not answer every inaccuracy or claim unsupported by evidence raised by Snyder.

“All that does is aggravate the confusion he has so skillfully created,” he said.

Sanders then had this to say about Snyder:

“He’s an absolute handful. You’ve got to love him. But I don’t agree with how he has mangled the facts. In my wildest imagination, I would’ve never come up with some of the theories or stating of facts he has come up with. It’s brilliant. It’s wrong, but it’s brilliant.”

I’m still not sure whether that is a compliment, backhanded compliment or a little of both.

DANNY JACOBS, Legal Affairs Writer

Back in January, the day before the Baltimore Ravens beat the Tennessee Titans in a playoff game, jurors in the Jacksonville residents’ billion-dollar lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corp. wore Ravens’ paraphernalia. Many of the plaintiffs’ lawyers from Snyder, Weltchek & Snyder wore purple ties or had purple beads around their necks. (Lawyers for Exxon, it should be noted, might not have shown their Ravens’ leanings out of respect for the company’s lead counsel, who are based in Nashville.)

The last person to enter the courtroom that day was the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Stephen L. Snyder. And when he took off his overcoat, he was wearing a purple suit, much to the delight of everyone in the courtroom.

I mention perhaps my favorite anecdote from the five-month trial to illustrate that most of the light-hearted moments have involved — or were directly caused by — Snyder throughout the proceedings. This Monday was no exception, as Snyder provided a few laughs during the start of his closing argument.

— The always nattily-attired Snyder thanked the jurors for sitting on a trial that has lasted longer than everyone expected. “I almost ran out of suits,” he deadpanned.

— Snyder was in the middle of a point when he was interrupted by his co-counsel, Robert J. Weltchek, who made a correction. Snyder thanked Weltchek and smiled. “One more time and I’ll throw you out of here,” Snyder said.

— A comic strip-like cartoon, part of the plaintiffs’ PowerPoint presentation, illustrated Exxon’s unresponsiveness to an actual leak alarm from a leak detection system because the detector often went off for reasons other than a leak. It featured a boy holding a bucket filled with water. Snyder said the boy’s name was “Peter.”

This touched off murmurs about mixing up children’s stories. The main character in the fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, it was later determined, is not necessarily the same character as in the early 20th century musical composition “Peter and The Wolf.” Snyder held his ground.

“Well, I call him ‘Peter,’” he said.

DANNY JACOBS, Legal Affairs Writer

I set my DVR to record the inauguration of Barack Obama on Tuesday because I was going to be in court covering the Exxon trial at least through lunch. At least, that’s what I thought.

Shortly before noon, the lawyers gathered for a bench conference, which is not unusual in this case. However, when they stepped away, Judge Maurice W. Baldwin Jr. announced a break to watch the inauguration, leading to “Thank yous” from the jurors.

Just like that, the projection screen and television monitors that have been used to display e-mails and spreadsheets for the past four months showed the west side of the U.S. Capitol and Joe Biden taking the vice-presidential oath. The courtroom is wired for the trial, so cnn.com’s live video of the event had been cued.

And just like that, lawyers for Exxon and the residents sat in rapt attention, as did the jurors and residents in attendance. They clapped loudly when Obama finished the presidential oath. Lawyers and court staff from other courtrooms trickled in to watch. Everyone stood for the National Anthem.

When it was over, one juror, an older black woman, wiped the tears from her eyes. Baldwin called for a lunch recess, and everyone returned still buzzing about what they had just witnessed.

The trial resumed, but as Stephen L. Snyder, the lead plaintiff’s counsel said before he began his re-direct examination, “That’s a tough act to follow.”

DANNY JACOBS, Legal Affairs Writer

Above: People gather in a mock drive-in theater to watch and listen to the inauguration speech of newly sworn-in President Barack Obama on a large screen televisions at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich. Bryan Mitchell/Associated Press