Does anyone here own any book by a juror in any infamous case? There, thought so.
Isn’t the old woman in the OP the one who has repeatedly claimed that she decided to acquit jackson because she “didn’t like how the boy’s mother rolled her eyes at her?” Unbelievable.
No, the mother “snapped her fingers”. I heard that there are tee-shirts out there with the phrase, “Don’t you snap your fingers at me, lady!” and Juror #5 beneath it.
I believe she’s also the one whose grandson is on the list for registered sex offenders.
Baldwin writes:
> What the Hell? A jury isn’t supposed to make “an agreement to be united”; it’s
> supposed to deliberate as long as necessary, with each juror voting according
> to his or her own conviction regarding the evidence presented in court. If they
> all twelve agree, you’ve got a verdict; if they can’t, you’ve got a hung jury,
> which is better than jurors voting dishonestly.
That’s the way that it’s supposed to work, but that’s not actually how it always works. Is anybody here familiar with some academic work (I guess it would be by sociologists) on how juries actually proceed in their deliberations? I suspect that if one studied the reports of jurors on how they actually deliberate on cases, the following frequently happens: A jury deliberates for a day or so. They don’t have any huge disagreement on what facts or interpretations of the law have been presented in the trial, but they finally come to the point where (for instance) three of them are convinced that the person is guilty and nine are convinced that he is innocent.
At this point, the each of the jurors voting for him being guilty say to themselves, “Well, it really looks unlikely that I’ll convince the other nine jurors that he’s guilty. I could hold out for conviction, which will mean that this will be a hung jury. The judge could be one of those who insists that we keep deliberating for another week before he declares it to be a hung jury. What would be lost if I just threw in the towel and voted for innocence? He will go free till the new trial even though I think he’s guilty, but then the jury in the next trial will probably find him innocent anyway. And the other nine jurors seem so convinced of his innocence. Perhaps it’s me who’s not thinking clearly here. The heck with it. I’m voting for innocence.”
Again, this is not how I think that juries should operate, but how I suspect that they do operate.
Some have speculated that some of the jurors might have been grousing about Jackson being an actual pedophile, but letting him go free because they had doubts about this specific boy. If I were on this jury that would explain me, but juror Eleanor Cook says no, she’s an idiot and actually believed Jackson molested this specific boy:
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/story.html?id=7ccdb0a4-ebb8-4fea-b6a1-b0ee3116412c
At least these swine deferred to a vote of not guilty. I fear many others like them might not hold out when they think a defendant is not guilty.
Christ, if I felt I was part of letting a child molester go free, I’d shut the fuck up about it. I don’t care how much money they promised to give me about a book.
Hell, I don’t know if I could resist putting a gun in my mouth, especially if he molested again.
I find this whole saga disturbing (albeit a little entertaining, I must admit). It really exemplifies the differences between the US judicial system and that which we have here in Australia.
Y’see, down 'ere, our jurors are entitled to, and are expected to remain publicly anonymous, both during and after a trial. Deliberations within the jury room especially are deemed totally confidential, and any leaking of information would probably incur a contempt of court charge by the sitting Judge…not only for the Leaker, but for any media outlet who tried to publish such information as well.
I find the actions of Cook and Hultman quite reprehensible. And whilst the media might be calling them to task for their indiscretion, I reckon it should be the court itself calling them back to answer for their fucking lack of civic duty in abiding by a verdict with which they conveniently now disagree.
:rolleyes:
Kambuckta, jurors in the U.S. are usually publicly anonymous as well. In fact, there was quite a scandal a few years back when a newspaper released the name and personal details about a juror. It may not be verboten in the legal sense to release the names of jurors, but the media must have some sort of unwritten understanding to not disclose such things. In cases where jurors are in potential danger (e.g. in Mafia trials), the judge will issue an order that the names are to be kept confidential. In extreme cases, the jurors will sit behind screens.
Our jurors are sworn to silence during the trial and deliberations. Once the trial is over, however, they are free to be interviewed by the prosecution, the defense, and/or the media if they so choose. Or they can choose to go home and retain their anonymity.
I agree with you that the actions of Cook and Hultman are reprehensible. Let’s hope their books tank.
Thanks for that clarification PunditLisa. I was getting the impression (from your more publicised trials obviously) that your court processes were a bit farcical, whereas it’s just the individual jurors who are completely fucked, not the system.
Can I have your mailing address? Well you see, I have this Baltimore Orioles cap that I have been wearing (my son played little league this year and we were the Orioles), and now I have been informed that nothing out here surprises nobody anymore. I just realized that it’s part of a messy, crass, tasteless, shameless, superficial, totally entertaining lifestyle that we call culture out here. So, this cap must find an owner outside of California, and you look like the person that could really use it. Oh, BTW…can you send money for postage? Because I’m really messy, crass, tasteless, shameless, and superficial. Hey, come on…at least you can get a free cap. 
You mean to tell me there are 49 other states and some 150 other countries that do shit that surprises nobody else? 
<reaching for Angels cap>
Ahhhh, that’s better.
In this case, we’re now being told (whether we believe it or not is tbd) that the 3 who originally voted guilty were told by the other 9 that the 9 would go to the judge and have the 3 kicked off the jury if they held their ground, and these numbskulls believed it was possible. They’d just spent however many months of their lives sitting in that box and they’d be damned if it’d all be for naught and not get to be there for the final verdict, hence, the change of plea due to the intimidation.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the fact that they’re trying to profit from it. I believe that their indignation is the only reason that they’ve both got book deals. After all, who would publish a book that said, “He didn’t do it and this is why”?
Did he do it? I dunno. I wasn’t on the jury and avoided listening to or reading anything about the trial whenever I could. Apparently there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of it if he did. Is sleeping with kids in your bed when you’re a 40+ man weird and creepy? Hell yeah. But it’s not illegal.
I think both of those jurors would benefit from some intense slap therapy.
Does anyone know if the jury was polled – think that’s the right term, where each one individually stands up and says the verdict, or that they agree with the verdict given by the foreman?
And if they were under any type of oath (you can tell I haven’t been on a jury in a long, long time), could they be charged with perjury?
Have any of the OJ jurors made any money on their books? I don’t think the Jackson jury will either. Maybe they should just settle for getting some free babysitting from Michael. For what it’s worth, from what I’ve heard the prosecution didn’t do the best job in the world. If reasonable doubt persisted, the acquittal was correct.
Perjury? For what?
The prosecution sucked. They included some bizarre conspiracy to commit abduction or kidnapping charge that really tainted the trial, they didn’t put on any kind of expert witness who might explain why a traumatized young boy might tell a school administrator that nothing happened, even though something really did. They completely miscalculated calling Debbie Rowe to testify, because once she got up there she completely changed her tune from calling Jackson a sociopath to saying he was a kind and wonderful man. Nevermind that she was embattled in a bitter custody/visitation fight simultaneously with Jackson, and her positive testimony on his behalf stood to benefit her in the custody negotiations. They should have anticipated that, or found some way to enter that conflict into the record, which I don’t believe they did.
And their voir dire skills completely sucked. It’s quite clear (to me, anyway) that these people weren’t questioned hard enough or thoroughly enough, or that several jurors out and out lied in order to get on the jury with the intent to acquit him no matter what. Three of them are now being painted as rabid Jackson fans, and with the jury stacked like that, there was no way in hell there would be a conviction, regardless of the weight of the testimony. One of the jurors had even been a guest at Neverland ranch! Cite.
I sincerely think we need to change the law to prevent profiting from jury service ever, not just this ridiculous 90 day waiting period. It’s offensive in the extreme that anyone should profit from what should be their civic duty and it just taints the entire process.
I believe the usual procedure is for defense attorneys to poll juries after a guilty verdict, in the (usually vain) hope that a juror who was bullied into voting guilty would fess up. I never heard of a not guilty verdict being polled.
As for the two who have gone public about disagreeing, they both took an oath to find according to the evidence as they saw it. If they voted against their own view because of an agreement to be “united” with the rest of the jury they ought to be held criminally responsible for breaking their oaths as jurors. Obstruction of justice, at least, should be invoked by the judge. These two may have hung the jury, but that was their duty if that’s what they really thought. The fact that they are now writing books about it says to me that they deliberately lied in their verdicts. They shouldn’t get away with it.
I could never have sat on that jury in the first place, because I am sure in my own mind that Jackson is a pedophile. There is also no doubt in my mind that new charges are only a matter of time. Pedophiles don’t stop. He will molest again.
I was delighted to hear that Jackson’s latest CDs have done poorly. Maybe the adulation is at last tempered with a dose of reality in spite of the celebrity-bamboozled jury.
I think that, similar to convicted criminals, jurors should not be allowed to profit from legal cases. It prevents a massive conflict of interest.
Regarding the general situation: I loved Letterman’s joke on the topic.
“Today, two jurors from the Michael Jackson trial now say that he was guilty. If only they could have done something about it.”