Have a rough day at the office ahead of you today? I bet Judge Lenard can sympathize. Apparently, "sternly order[ing]" the jurors in the Liberty City 6 trial "to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate" (as Curt Anderson put it for AP) did not do the trick. But she is not giving up on them yet. Motion for mistrial denied. UPDATE: Deliberations are starting again with a new alternate subbing-in for the person now known as "the recalcitrant juror".
Interesting, seems like she is the voice of the defendants in the view of the other jurors...hence 'her refusal to participate is prejudicing the defendants...'
ReplyDeleteDoes a jury panel have a right to force a juror to open a book where she says 'I have listened to the evidence and made up my mind and I don't believe they are guilty.' The view 'I don't trust the law' is a perfectly legitimate view for a juror to have and the judge has no right to interfere with that perspective...a jury is always privileged to disregard the law. Just look at the way they use 404(b) evidence.
Seems to me like the government is going to ram a conviction down on these guys.
So basically Judge Lenard is going to continue replacing the African American jurors until one of them goes along with the rest of the jurors. It is quite obvious that Judge Lenard is determined to bring closure to this case, even if she butchers our justice system while doing so. I still don't understand why we are entertaining this case a third time.
ReplyDeleteWait...you mean the judge can just change members of the jury; just like that; just because it looks like the jury will hang? That's CRAZY.
ReplyDeleteThere is a distinction to be made between having reached a decision after deliberation and refusing to budge vs. refusing to deliberate because you've already reached a decision before you even entered the jury room. If it's the latter, then Lenard is correct to replace any such jurors.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you can possibly attest that the juror refused to deliberate because she had established a decision on her own and prior to sitting through the trial. 4:08 PM, your commentary is blatantly prejudice. Clearly, there has been enough issues with two jurors, who have sat through the trial, and still do not believe/trust the government's position in this case.
ReplyDeleteIt is confounding to me that the government has the same AUSA on this case for a third time.
ReplyDeleteHave you heard the arguments?
Time to clean house over there, and clean this thng up.
Does anyone know what the law is regarding disclosing jury notes? It's my understanding that the Court is not releasing copies of the notes to the parties.
ReplyDelete