Blake jury stupid, says DA

Great Debates
1

Link

Two opposed views from the article:

Cooley’s comments were unusual, but not unethical, according to legal experts.

“To criticize the jurors is unprofessional — it is unbelievable,” said Laurie Levinson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School.

I’d say they were unprofessional AND unethical but then IANAL. Isn’t this dangerous territory? Couldn’t future jurors feel a little intimidated, ie they might go along with the prosecution case, not wishing to be lambasted on the networks as “stupid”?

2

Even if the prosecution doesn’t say it, people like (pulling an example from the air) David Letterman or Jon Stewart might. Being a juror in a high-profile case has its risks.

I think the prosecutor, however, is tarnishing the image of the justice system. That isn’t wrong, but I think it’s unwise.

3

Is it really the fault of the jury that the DAs office in L.A. can’t win a high publicity case?

4

It appears that Cooley’s statement is not technically prohibited.

The critical part is this:

He didn’t make a comment “to a member of that jury,” just to everybody else.

I would have thought he had better self-control, though.

5

“incredibly stupid” is a pretty accurate description – about the comment about
the jury.

6

That comment should quickly be followed by the DA’s resignation. If the DA no longer trusts the judicial system he/she should no longer be a DA.

7

That’s going a bit far, isn’t it? One can have faith in the system, but still think that 12 temporary members of that system are frigging idiots. See: OJ jury.

8

Maybe, but there is a big difference between having an oppinion and stating it publicly.

9

Why do I have the feeling that some people would have a very different opinion of the D.A.'s remarks if they’d come, say, after that Simi Valley jury acquitted the cops who beat up Rodney King?

10

Because you’re prone to knee-jerk reactions? Am i close?

The issue isn’t whether people agree with the substance of the DA’s comments; the issue is whether they think that it’s appropriate for the DA to be making such comments.

I can’t speak for the other participants in this thread, but i don’t think such remarks are appropriate when made by a DA, whether in the Rodney King case, the Robert Blake case, or any other case. Much as this may surprise you, my own feeling about the verdict is something i can hold independently of my feeling about a district attorney’s ethical conduct. And i’m sure that many other people can make the same distinction.

11

I think it makes the DA look incredibly stupid himself. Where was he during voir dire? The purpose of voir dire is to choose a jury acceptable to both sides by determining their competence or suitability. So, not only should obvious prejudices be eliminated from the jury, but so would blatent stupidity.

So, by calling the jurors stupid, the DA implies that he (or his assistants - whoever participated in voir dire) cannot recognise stupidity. In my opinion, this makes them “stupid” also. I would not vote for a DA that has proven themselves stupid.

So, looking at it from the DA’s POV, he should not have that.
This DA has dug a hole that hopefully will be very hard to climb out of. I have some faith in the system. It’s not perfect by a long shot, but it’s loads better than some alternatives we’ve seen or learned of. However, I can, and do, easily lose faith in certain individuals inside the system.

12

Excuse me, but there are still rare occasions in this country where it’s OK to call things as you see them. There’s nothing wrong with seeing that jury as incredibly stupid. I do.

13

I think you’re trying to apply an ethic of discretion to the D.A. that’s not appropriate to his role. If you were talking about the *judge * you’d have an argument. But the D.A. is *supposed * to be biased and be a strong advocate for a given perspective. It’s perfectly OK - and encouraged - for him to be vocal about it.

14

I don’t care if Cooley wants to say the evidence was strong or the jurors were misled or whatever, but stupid? Sorry. I didn’t vote for him last time but next time he runs I will probably actively campaign against him. I’ve served on many juries, including a federal grand jury for an entire year (one day a week), and while some jurors can be … difficult … to deal with, nobody I sat with was stupid. A friend of mine said it well: since Cooley is an elected official, he works for us, so he just called the boss stupid. And we all know what happens to employees who do that.

15

Never said he wasn’t supposed to be an advocate, or that he wasn’t meant to be vocal about his position. But, as kayT points, there’s a difference between that and calling a jury stupid.

16

The jury is the standard, so it is hard to see how they can be stupid. That is, it is hard to see what standard is offered up by which we judge a jury. Presumably if a DA would agree with an acquittal or hung jury then she wouldn’t be trying the case in the first place. So I’m sure it is fair to say that most DA’s aren’t pleased with juries that don’t side with the prosecution. But how would one be a prosecutor if one wasn’t a hard-ass, no-bullshit kind of person?

I hope during the next jury selection prospective jurors make some choice remarks.

PS–I know nothing about this case. And people can be stupid. And it can also be stupid to say so in some situations. YMMV.

17

All of the above may be true, but let’s not forget the best part of this story. The Harm that Cooley has done to his political future by making such a foolish statement in public, let alone for the media. :smack:

I’m sure as a prosecutor, hoping for an easy win out of this case it hurt like hell to have the jury reverse his case, but if he had been realistic he would have realized from the beginning that he had more than Blakes popularity working against him and that this was not a slam dunk.

Unlike O.J., this was not a man that most of L.A. wanted to believe was guilty.

He did not go on a runaway jaunt that made him look guilty.

He called 911 (I think) and stayed at the scene.

The victim had a past with other potential assailants.

Blake had a lot to lose by committing the crime and not a lot to gain.

He could have done it, there was some evidence. He might have done it. But the jury did not believe the prosecution and THAT IS the prosecution’s job.

We will see if Blake winds up losing a civil case as O.J. did.

If he wins that, Cooley can probably kiss the rest of his political future goodbye.

Peter

The Peter Files

18

First off, I haven’t followed the Robert Blake trial at all. I try very hard to steer clear of media coverage of celebrity trials.

So, I can’t know whether the D.A. presented a stellar, airtight case that was rejected by 12 numbskulls, or whether he presented a sloppy, utterly unpersuasive case that 12 responsible citizens correctly decided didn’t prove Robert Blake’s guilt.

So, I offer no opinion as to whether the jurors WERE stupid in this particular case.
I merely say that jurors sometimes ARE stupid or biased or driven by base motives, and we’ve all thought so in a number of high-profile cases.

If they ARE stupid, and if they DO make an utterly, blatantly wrong-headed decision, I don’t have any problem with the media or the D.A. or anyone else blasting them publicly.

Mhendo may think that’s out of line. I don’t. And I scoff at his suggestion that he’d say the same about ANY high profile case. (Anyone think he kept a straight face while he typed that?)

Once upon a time, all-white juries in the South regularly acquitted white men who were charged with beating or killing blacks. I WISH a few prosecutors had had the honesty and the cojones to call such jurors stupid bigots, because that’s exactly what they were!

And if prosecutors in Simi Valley had blasted the all-white jury that acquitted Rodney King’s assailants, I’d have applauded those prosecutors. Despite his protestations, I’m certain Mhendo would have. too.

Again, I don’t know how strong the D.A.'s case against Robert Blake was. Perhaps he’s right to call the jurors stupid, or perhaps this is just sour grapes. Maybe he’s just bellyaching because he knows he did a lousy job.

But if he truly believes he had an ironclad case, and that the jury had to be nuts to come back with a “Not Guilty” verdict, I don’t mind seeing him say so in public. The L.A. voters can then decide for themselves if they want this man to keep his job.

19

Accuse me of lying. Nice one.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion about what DAs should or should not say about juries, but you haven’t yet demonstrated the requisite abilities to convince me that you can read my mind, so i’d appreciate it if, in the absence of any evidence, you refrain from calling me a liar. If you can’t make your argument in GD without insulting me, then it’s probably not a very strong argument in the first place.

My argument was purely one about professional duties. I have no trouble with blasting the jury myself, if i believe i know enough about the case to do so. And i have no trouble with the media blasting them, and with politicians blasting them, and just about anyone else you care to name.

But, as erislover correctly points out, the DA does not (or, at least, should not) proceed to trial unless he or she believes that the case against the accused is one than can be sustained. By definition, a prosecutor should disagree with every jury that finds the accused person “not guilty.” But calling the jury stupid (in public) is not only unproductive and pointless, it calls into question the prosecutor’s own belief in the efficacy of the criminal justice system of which he or she is a central part. Furthermore, such accusations will probably seem to most people like sour grapes and/or an attempt to cover for the prosecutor’s own ineptitude.

20

The DA’s office in Los Angeles County is elected and is subject to term limits so I don’t believe Cooley can run again anyway.

His mention of the Blake case jury was part of a very long talk in front of a meeting of the Society of Professional Journalists. They did grab the juciest part, but his principal focus of his talk was about the general difficulty that his office has in trying to convict celebrities of crimes. And he talked about “The CSI effect” where juries now expect that all police forces have these high tech forensic teams that find evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.