Wowee. You should read this entire Politico article about the deliberations, but there's this:
Ellen indicated that she and another juror who happened to be a lawyer helped spearhead a lot of the deliberations. Some jurors, she said, did not seem to have followed every twist and turn of the trial. Others, she said, seemed to have preconceived notions against convicting anyone regardless of the facts — which the jury had to overcome to arrive at its verdict. And when she completed her service, after a five-week trial and lengthy deliberations, Ellen came away with a conclusion: If she were ever on trial, she would waive her right to a jury and instead let the judge decide her fate.
“I would never want my fate in the hands of people who are mostly completely ill-equipped to understand what’s going on,” she said.
Ellen described the extraordinary volume of evidence jurors had to sift through as they considered the 34 counts against the six defendants — part of prosecutors’ video evidence trove that is unparalleled in American history. She said she grew exasperated at times with some jurors’ insistence that they had to rely only on direct evidence to reach a conviction, rather than circumstantial evidence that can point to someone’s guilt. But despite these frustrations, she ultimately compared the experience to “12 Angry Men” and a “made-for-TV movie” in which jurors understood the gravity of their charge and the significance of the case they had just witnessed.
Ellen indicated that of the four defendants who took the stand “three did harm to themselves by testifying.” One of them, she said, was Bennie Parker, whose testimony she said helped convince the jury that there was a plan to storm the Capitol even before the group arrived at the building. That testimony, she said, damaged other defendants, including Parker’s wife Sandra, who was convicted on several counts for which Parker — who didn’t enter the building — was acquitted.
***
Ellen saved her harshest remarks for some of the defense lawyers in the case, who she said at times acted in ways that perplexed and even upset the jury. For example, the lawyer for one defendant, Laura Steele, didn’t put on a case for his client but noticeably laughed repeatedly throughout the trial, Ellen said.
“I was horrified,” she said.
8 comments:
Juries are the worst.
When I was an associate I watched the juries while my bosses put on trials and I could see it in their expressions, and even when they mouthed comments under their breath. The juries almost never got it. We'd win cases that we had no business winning and we'd lose cases that should have been slam dunks. It was a crap shoot. At best, it was a popularity contest.
Since I started running my own cases, I have never asked for a jury again. Judge's aren't perfect either, but they are far more predictable.
David, what do you think--are jurors "mostly completely ill-equipped to understand what’s going on"?
She would ask for a judge and waive jury if charged with a crime? Isn't her whole point that we, as defense lawyers should always want a jury - especially where there is strong evidence of guilt? Forgive me, but isn't a confused jury, or a sympathetic jury, one of the last bastions of hope of a guilty defendant?
She remembered thinking, “How could they allow a person from the media, who their staff was in the middle of the insurrection and various television equipment was being destroyed from other networks that could’ve been ours. I don’t even know if it was or wasn’t.”
Ellen said she volunteered during jury selection that she worked for C-SPAN, finding it odd that she was never asked to identify an employer until the later rounds of questioning. Though three defense witnesses jumped up to question her, they ultimately agreed she could be an impartial juror.
2255 coming at you.
@Anonymous about "a confused jury, or a sympathetic jury, [being] one of the last bastions of hope of a guilty defendant," I think that the interviewee was thinking of a scenario where they were charged with a crime as a defendant, but they (the defendant) thought they were innocent. Yes, I suppose if you're a defendant and you think you're guilty, a confused jury might acquit you. But if you think you're innocent, the interviewee's point was that a judge would better cut through the chaff.
The US Attorney’s office does not charge innocent people. Duh.
75% of defendants who testify hurt their case. I think the number is higher. David and I disagree on this. But I don’t like putting a client on.
DOM: I’d really like to hear your take on Senate bill 686, formally known as the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology” (RESTRICT) act. It seems to go so far beyond banning TikTok. I’m not an expert, and this is just my lay reading of it, but it seems like it would give the government extremely far-reaching surveillance and censorship powers with virtually no oversight, and it also carries severe penalties for violations.
Post a Comment