|
Home > Archive > Medicine transcription > November 2004 > Breaking news -Peterson verdict at 4 PM
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Breaking news -Peterson verdict at 4 PM
|
|
| Barbara OBrien Smith 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| >They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
>
Well, durn - ya beat me to it! 
I'm firmly convinced they stuck it out until today because they knew I'm home
on Fridays. lol
Sandi
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| Note that it's 4 p.m. EST. That's 1:00 p.m. for those of us on the
left coast and other times for those who live somewhere in
between...
Eliyahu
"Barbara OBrien Smith" <bsptss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112143152.00289.00000455@mb-m17.aol.com...
| They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| Thanks for clearing it up as I'm central time here and may not have thought
about which coast they were reporting from.
Dani
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2vkhvdF2mc6htU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Note that it's 4 p.m. EST. That's 1:00 p.m. for those of us on the
> left coast and other times for those who live somewhere in
> between...
>
> Eliyahu
>
> "Barbara OBrien Smith" <bsptss@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041112143152.00289.00000455@mb-m17.aol.com...
> | They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
>
>
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| And how long was the deliberation after the foreman was replaced? Seems a
quick verdict those who are hoping for not guilty. I know they've been in
deliberation for a while anyway, but if they had to (of course they follow
instructions) start all over then isn't it fairly quick?
Dani
"Barbara OBrien Smith" <bsptss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112143152.00289.00000455@mb-m17.aol.com...
> They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and why?
I say innocent.
There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the rest of
the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that they
turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7 kicked off.
There were also reports that he was insisting they go through the case
piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the jurors
wanted to get on with it.
Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate that a
majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6 was
reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first juror that
got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott was
guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms and
sighing.
The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four hours. I
don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death penalty
case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing the
evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
I may be wrong.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
> They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
Dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and why?
>
> I say innocent.
>
> There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the rest of
> the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that they
> turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7 kicked off.
> There were also reports that he was insisting they go through the case
> piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the jurors
> wanted to get on with it.
>
> Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate that a
> majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6 was
> reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first juror that
> got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott was
> guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
> negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms and
> sighing.
>
> The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four hours. I
> don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death penalty
> case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing the
> evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
>
> I may be wrong.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| I don't know. The OJ jury was out in under four hours too.
I would tend to think it depends on the preponderance of evidence. If
there is a case with strong evidence then I would assume the jury would
go guilty quicker as you describe. If there is no real evidence or the
jury has discounted the evidence presented, then I'd say they're more
likely to lean towards innocence in a short time frame.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
djgordon wrote:
> But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
> years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
> isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
> a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
>
> Dani
>
> "Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
> news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>
>
>
>
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are saying
they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:Ur2dnb_GN9J5gQjcRVn-jA@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't know. The OJ jury was out in under four hours too.
>
> I would tend to think it depends on the preponderance of evidence. If
> there is a case with strong evidence then I would assume the jury would
> go guilty quicker as you describe. If there is no real evidence or the
> jury has discounted the evidence presented, then I'd say they're more
> likely to lean towards innocence in a short time frame.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> djgordon wrote:
couple[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| >But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
>years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
>isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
>a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
>
>Dani
Actually the conventional wisdom is the opposite - well, sort of. Short
verdict tends to come down not guilty, longer verdicts guilty, and of course
longer ones are the only ones that result in hung juries.
Sandi
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| >Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are saying
>they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
>
>dani
>
That's what I said. Guilty of murder 2, but I think it won't hold up on appeal
and he'll end up with a new trial eventually.
That's just my prediction, of course.
Sandi
| |
| Susan Mitchell 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| I believe it will be not guilty. Not because I think he is, --
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medlawtrans@comcast.net)
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and why?
>
> I say innocent.
>
> There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the rest of
> the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that they
> turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7 kicked off.
> There were also reports that he was insisting they go through the case
> piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the jurors
> wanted to get on with it.
>
> Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate that a
> majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6 was
> reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first juror that
> got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott was
> guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
> negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms and
> sighing.
>
> The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four hours. I
> don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death penalty
> case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing the
> evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
>
> I may be wrong.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| Depends a lot on the length of the trial and strength of the
evidence. Usually when a jury is out for more than an hour or two,
they're getting into "prosecutor's time."
Eliyahu
"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fV8ld.10533$WC6.9367@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a
couple
| years since I was right up close and personal in the legal
environment, but
| isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more
hopes of
| a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
|
| Dani
|
| "Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
| news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
| > Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and
why?
| >
| > I say innocent.
| >
| > There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the
rest of
| > the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that
they
| > turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7
kicked off.
| > There were also reports that he was insisting they go through
the case
| > piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the
jurors
| > wanted to get on with it.
| >
| > Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate
that a
| > majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6
was
| > reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first
juror that
| > got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott
was
| > guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
| > negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms
and
| > sighing.
| >
| > The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four
hours. I
| > don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death
penalty
| > case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing
the
| > evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
| >
| > I may be wrong.
| >
| > Mike DeTuri
| > http://www.deturi.com
| >
| >
| > Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
| > > They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
|
|
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
|
"SANDITYPES" <sanditypes@aol.comshazbot> wrote in message
news:20041112154127.16116.00000595@mb-m02.aol.com...
| >Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are
saying
| >they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
| >
| >dani
| >
|
| That's what I said. Guilty of murder 2, but I think it won't hold
up on appeal
| and he'll end up with a new trial eventually.
|
| That's just my prediction, of course.
|
The other question is, what will be the next Trial de jour? Who will
be the next victim of trial by media? After all, from a legal POV
there's absolutly nothing in the Peterson case to make it of special
interest -- no groundbreaking issues of fact or law, no
constitutional questions of significance that haven't already been
decided elsewhere, and, in fact, no reason that we should be
particularly interested other than that the news media decided to
grab it and run with it.
Eliyahu
| |
| Im1whalen 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| GUILTY OF IST FOR LACI AND 2ND FOR CONNER...INTERESTING....
| |
| Im1whalen 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| >The other question is, what will be the next Trial de jour?
What's happening with Michael Jackson?
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| >The other question is, what will be the next Trial de jour? Who will
>be the next victim of trial by media? After all, from a legal POV
>there's absolutly nothing in the Peterson case to make it of special
>interest -- no groundbreaking issues of fact or law, no
>constitutional questions of significance that haven't already been
>decided elsewhere, and, in fact, no reason that we should be
>particularly interested other than that the news media decided to
>grab it and run with it.
>
>Eliyahu
>
I disagree that there were no factual issues of interest, human interest, that
is. The public fell in love with Laci when she went missing. The mystery
deepened with the girlfriend and then she turned up right where he was. His
behavior was something straight out of a novel - no, strike that - no one would
find such a novel believable.
Evil bastards murder their wives/girlfriends, pregnant ones too, almost every
day. In that respect, it wasn't anything earth-shattering. It's the way the
events unfolded, in my opinion, that caught the country's interest. You
couldn't write this stuff.
The public really doesn't care about groundbreaking legal issues or
constitutional questions; you and I would find that stuff interesting, but most
people are interested in people.
Sandi
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| Correction, I quoted Vinny Politan on CourtTV earlier about the 4 hours.
FOX said the final 12 deliberated for about 8 hours before the verdict.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
Mike DeTuri wrote:
> I don't know. The OJ jury was out in under four hours too.
>
> I would tend to think it depends on the preponderance of evidence. If
> there is a case with strong evidence then I would assume the jury would
> go guilty quicker as you describe. If there is no real evidence or the
> jury has discounted the evidence presented, then I'd say they're more
> likely to lean towards innocence in a short time frame.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
| |
|
| I used to be secty to one of the top criminal attys in the country and
generally if they stay out more than a few hours, the verdict is guilty; not
always, but generally. If they stay out an hour or less, it is usually not
guilty.
I have seen people walk for doing more due to lack of evidence and you knew
they were guilty, so I really did not think this guy was going to get what was
coming.
They will most likely try and appeal of some sort. They all do.
OTOH, I have seen innocent people being found guilty with no evidence...not
often, but it does happen.
Vickie
>
>Correction, I quoted Vinny Politan on CourtTV earlier about the 4 hours.
> FOX said the final 12 deliberated for about 8 hours before the verdict.
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:27 pm |
| The public is especially interested in controversy, scandal, sex, and
lies. In this case I think they wanted to get the man who cheated on
8-month pregnant Laci.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
> The public really doesn't care about groundbreaking legal issues or
> constitutional questions; you and I would find that stuff interesting, but most
> people are interested in people.
>
> Sandi
| |
| Tomnorden 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >In this case I think they wanted to get the man who cheated on
>8-month pregnant Laci.
Cheating is one thing, murdering her and the unborn baby is quite another.
Marie
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| I agree. Unfortunately, in this case there was only evidence for the
cheating. Like I said, I guess that's enough for some people.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
Tomnorden wrote:
>
>
> Cheating is one thing, murdering her and the unborn baby is quite another.
>
> Marie
| |
| Margie 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Mike,
I think you're disrespecting the intelligence of this jury. Don't you
think they have to live with this for the rest of their lives?
Margie
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:38:29 -0800, Mike DeTuri <seemy@webpage.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I agree. Unfortunately, in this case there was only evidence for the
>cheating. Like I said, I guess that's enough for some people.
>
>Mike DeTuri
>http://www.deturi.com
>
>
>Tomnorden wrote:
| |
| Phyllis 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| I agree with you, and to this day, I believe that is why some folks
still believe O.J. Simpson is guilty (no, I don't know if he is or isn't
because I wasn't there and no one else was either, and I realize some
folks have other reasons). This should be a warning to cheatin' men
everywhere.
Mike DeTuri wrote:
> I agree. Unfortunately, in this case there was only evidence for the
> cheating. Like I said, I guess that's enough for some people.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> Tomnorden wrote:
>
>
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Huh? I think everyone has to live their conscience and the results of
their decisions for the rest of their lives. That's just the way life
works for everyone, jury or not.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
Margie wrote:
> Mike,
> I think you're disrespecting the intelligence of this jury. Don't you
> think they have to live with this for the rest of their lives?
>
> Margie
>
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:38:29 -0800, Mike DeTuri <seemy@webpage.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| > Unfortunately, in this case there was only evidence for the[vbcol=seagreen]
You already said that you hadn't read all of the transcripts and evidence. You
reckon maybe the jurors actually had more information that you did?
Sandi
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| That's certainly possible. Of course, some people made their minds up
that he was guilty before the case even went to trial and without having
reviewed all of the evidence themselves. Some of those people didn't
even seem to be aware that the transcripts were available for their
review.
I heard the final 12 jurors didn't ask to review any of the evidence in
the case while deliberating. In a case of this size with this many
witnesses, don't you find that odd?
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
> You already said that you hadn't read all of the transcripts and evidence. You
> reckon maybe the jurors actually had more information that you did?
>
> Sandi
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Then again, it's a jury. The judge decides what they see. Because of
this, they could have had less information than I did.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
>
>
> You already said that you hadn't read all of the transcripts and evidence. You
> reckon maybe the jurors actually had more information that you did?
>
> Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >I heard the final 12 jurors didn't ask to review any of the evidence in
>the case while deliberating. In a case of this size with this many
>witnesses, don't you find that odd?
>
I can't even imagine trying to keep all of that information straight!
Rae Morrill in Maine
"Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
_______________________________
Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL TOSSPAM!
| |
| Margie 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Mike,
I was just making the point that I believe the jurors made their
decision based on their understanding of the facts, not on emotion.
Many disagree.
Margie
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:32:49 -0800, Mike DeTuri <seemy@webpage.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Huh? I think everyone has to live their conscience and the results of
>their decisions for the rest of their lives. That's just the way life
>works for everyone, jury or not.
>
>Mike DeTuri
>http://www.deturi.com
>
>
>Margie wrote:
| |
| Judity01 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >I heard the final 12 jurors didn't ask to review any of the evidence in
>the case while deliberating. In a case of this size with this many
>witnesses, don't you find that odd?
>
((I can't even imagine trying to keep all of that information straight!
))
I understand they were allowed to take notes throughout the trial. Perhaps
that it what they were using as reference.
Judity
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Exactly. It was said that one juror had notebooks full of notes.
dani
"Judity01" <judity01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041113142716.07592.00000702@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
> ((I can't even imagine trying to keep all of that information straight!
> ))
>
> I understand they were allowed to take notes throughout the trial.
Perhaps
> that it what they were using as reference.
>
> Judity
>
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Yeah, the foreman who left. They said the new foreman didn't take any
notes, or if he did, very few.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
djgordon wrote:
> Exactly. It was said that one juror had notebooks full of notes.
>
> dani
>
> "Judity01" <judity01@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041113142716.07592.00000702@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
>
> Perhaps
>
>
>
>
| |
| Judity01 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| ((Yeah, the foreman who left. They said the new foreman didn't take any
notes, or if he did, very few.))
Perhaps the first one shared the notes before leaving.
Judity
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| That's possible. Still, wouldn't it be irresponsible for them to base a
decision on someone's notes when they have the ability (some may say
duty) to review any and all evidence in the case?
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
Judity01 wrote:
> ((Yeah, the foreman who left. They said the new foreman didn't take any
> notes, or if he did, very few.))
>
> Perhaps the first one shared the notes before leaving.
>
> Judity
>
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| judity01@aol.com (Judity01) scribbled here
news:20041113142716.07592.00000702@mb-m01.aol.com:
>
> I understand they were allowed to take notes throughout the trial.
> Perhaps that it what they were using as reference.
>
I heard on the news that the original foreman took 19 notebooks of notes
and that the one who replaced him had not taken a single note.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| judity01@aol.com (Judity01) scribbled here
news:20041113144243.07592.00000707@mb-m01.aol.com:
> ((Yeah, the foreman who left. They said the new foreman didn't take
> any notes, or if he did, very few.))
>
> Perhaps the first one shared the notes before leaving.
I heard it speculated that that was one of the reasons he was asked to
leave. Of course, I have heard nothing to back that up and and have
watched now maybe 10 minutes of TV since the verdict came out. I heard he
was one of the ones "Refusing to believe" he was guilty.
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >I heard the final 12 jurors didn't ask to review any of the evidence in
>the case while deliberating. In a case of this size with this many
>witnesses, don't you find that odd?
>
>Mike DeTuri
Not really. Remember 10 of those final 12 were original jurors and DID review
other evidence. Also, when it comes to testimony, they only tend to ask for
readbacks if there is a dispute as to what testimony was. They are supposed to
use their own notes and memories to review pertinent testimony as much as
possible. As you pointed out several times, this is a primarily circumstantial
case and so the bulk of their discussion likely centered around the testimony
rather than the physical evidence.
Sandi
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Are you saying that once the final 12 were seated they didn't start over
with deliberations as instructed by the judge?
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
> Not really. Remember 10 of those final 12 were original jurors and DID review
> other evidence.
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Could you? It's kind of like that little thing from school years, make your
mind a complete blank, don't think of a polar bear. Well duh, what's the
first thing that pops into your head? You can't clear your mind even when
they tell you to.
Dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:1ZWdnSZSd8foEAvcRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Are you saying that once the final 12 were seated they didn't start over
> with deliberations as instructed by the judge?
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> SANDITYPES wrote:
review[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >Are you saying that once the final 12 were seated they didn't start over
>with deliberations as instructed by the judge?
>
>Mike DeTuri
Of course. In practical terms you can't unring the bell.
Sandi
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Just checking. I had heard that the deliberations were recorded, but
are sealed. Wouldn't ignoring explicit instructions like this from the
judge increase the chance of a mistrial and make an appeal more likely
to go through?
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
> Of course. In practical terms you can't unring the bell.
>
> Sandi
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| It's not ignoring in the strict sense of the word, though. It's like Sandi
and I both said, you can't undo what's been done. They could have gone back
in that deliberation room, said, okay, let's start at the beginning and then
talked about everything from day one to finish. However, that doesn't mean
they could change the views already conceived in their minds and as far as I
know, no one has access to anyone's private thoughts.
Dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:PfednWtHxO_SEArcRVn-oQ@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Just checking. I had heard that the deliberations were recorded, but
> are sealed. Wouldn't ignoring explicit instructions like this from the
> judge increase the chance of a mistrial and make an appeal more likely
> to go through?
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> SANDITYPES wrote:
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >Just checking. I had heard that the deliberations were recorded, but
>are sealed. Wouldn't ignoring explicit instructions like this from the
>judge increase the chance of a mistrial and make an appeal more likely
>to go through?
As far as I know, deliberations are NEVER recorded. I don't know how a judge
would determine whether his instruction to start over was ignored, because as
far as I know, every jury in every case starts in their own way. Some take a
vote and go from there. Some just started discussing the case. And so on.
What I was saying is, 10 of those people had seen things that they in
particular had asked to see. It doens't necessarily follow that in order to
"start over," the other two would want to see those same things.
Sandi
| |
| Becky Young 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >every jury in every case starts in their own way.
And every judge may have a different way of going - for instance, the judge I
served with would not allow notes to be taken! Can you believe that? One of the
trials was lengthy and involved the possibility of the death penalty - I was
scratched from that one though, because I'm anti-death penalty all the way.
Becky Young
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
|
"SANDITYPES" <sanditypes@aol.comshazbot> wrote in message
news:20041114135220.00289.00000543@mb-m17.aol.com...
>
> As far as I know, deliberations are NEVER recorded. I don't know how
> a judge
> would determine whether his instruction to start over was ignored,
> because as
> far as I know, every jury in every case starts in their own way. Some
> take a
> vote and go from there. Some just started discussing the case. And
> so on.
>
Nevertheless, you can bet that juror misconduct will be one of several
major issues in the appeal.
Eliyahu
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >And every judge may have a different way of going - for instance, the judge I
>served with would not allow notes to be taken! Can you believe that? One of
>the
>trials was lengthy and involved the possibility of the death penalty - I was
>scratched from that one though, because I'm anti-death penalty all the way.
>
>
>Becky Young
>
Some jurisdictions in fact do not allow note-taking. It probably wasn't the
judge, but the law in your area that prevented it.
Sandi
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >Nevertheless, you can bet that juror misconduct will be one of several
>major issues in the appeal.
>
>Eliyahu
I'm sure it will be included. But in the coverage I watched it was speculated
that this judge covered the two dismissals very carefully on the record (which
isn't public yet).
Sandi
| |
| Margie 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Even Chris Pixley, one of the most staunch defense attorney
commentators, has said that he doesn't think juror dismissals will be
part of any appeal. And Judge Delucchi, who was brought out of
retirement to try this case because he's so good at it, isn't about to
create any situations that would stand up on appeal. I believe we
will see that he covered his bases very adequately.
Margie
On 14 Nov 2004 20:04:54 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
wrote:
>
>I'm sure it will be included. But in the coverage I watched it was speculated
>that this judge covered the two dismissals very carefully on the record (which
>isn't public yet).
>
>Sandi
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
Dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and why?
>
> I say innocent.
>
> There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the rest of
> the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that they
> turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7 kicked off.
> There were also reports that he was insisting they go through the case
> piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the jurors
> wanted to get on with it.
>
> Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate that a
> majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6 was
> reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first juror that
> got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott was
> guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
> negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms and
> sighing.
>
> The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four hours. I
> don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death penalty
> case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing the
> evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
>
> I may be wrong.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are saying
they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:Ur2dnb_GN9J5gQjcRVn-jA@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't know. The OJ jury was out in under four hours too.
>
> I would tend to think it depends on the preponderance of evidence. If
> there is a case with strong evidence then I would assume the jury would
> go guilty quicker as you describe. If there is no real evidence or the
> jury has discounted the evidence presented, then I'd say they're more
> likely to lean towards innocence in a short time frame.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> djgordon wrote:
couple[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are saying
>they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
>
>dani
>
That's what I said. Guilty of murder 2, but I think it won't hold up on appeal
and he'll end up with a new trial eventually.
That's just my prediction, of course.
Sandi
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
|
"SANDITYPES" <sanditypes@aol.comshazbot> wrote in message
news:20041112154127.16116.00000595@mb-m02.aol.com...
| >Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are
saying
| >they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
| >
| >dani
| >
|
| That's what I said. Guilty of murder 2, but I think it won't hold
up on appeal
| and he'll end up with a new trial eventually.
|
| That's just my prediction, of course.
|
The other question is, what will be the next Trial de jour? Who will
be the next victim of trial by media? After all, from a legal POV
there's absolutly nothing in the Peterson case to make it of special
interest -- no groundbreaking issues of fact or law, no
constitutional questions of significance that haven't already been
decided elsewhere, and, in fact, no reason that we should be
particularly interested other than that the news media decided to
grab it and run with it.
Eliyahu
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| The misconduct I referred to wasn't part of the dismissals, but, rather,
has to do with reports that jurors climbed in and out of the boat and
tried rocking it. They aren't allowed to conduct experiments on their
own or to perform tests that weren't done in court.
Eliyahu
"Margie" <nomoremargiesjunk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iimfp05ig19bcutrp4gn2rm7356u6dkkpt@4ax.com...
> Even Chris Pixley, one of the most staunch defense attorney
> commentators, has said that he doesn't think juror dismissals will be
> part of any appeal. And Judge Delucchi, who was brought out of
> retirement to try this case because he's so good at it, isn't about to
> create any situations that would stand up on appeal. I believe we
> will see that he covered his bases very adequately.
>
> Margie
>
> On 14 Nov 2004 20:04:54 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
> wrote:
>
several[vbcol=seagreen]
speculated[vbcol=seagreen]
record (which[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| Margie 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Court TV said that the judge was present when this occurred and that
in his estimation it was "manipulation" of the evidence, which is
permitted, rather than "experimentation," which is not. Fine line,
probably, but I'd bet Delucchi didn't see anything he thought was
improper or he would have called a quick halt to it. He comes through
with shining colors, from what I've heard, unlike good old Judge Ito.
Margie
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:00:03 -0800, "Eliyahu Rooff"
<lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The misconduct I referred to wasn't part of the dismissals, but, rather,
>has to do with reports that jurors climbed in and out of the boat and
>tried rocking it. They aren't allowed to conduct experiments on their
>own or to perform tests that weren't done in court.
>
>Eliyahu
>
>"Margie" <nomoremargiesjunk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:iimfp05ig19bcutrp4gn2rm7356u6dkkpt@4ax.com...
>several
>speculated
>record (which
>
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| That doesn't mean that it won't be challenged, though -- just that
they're likely to include "abuse of discretion" for the judge allowing
it.
Eliyahu
"Margie" <nomoremargiesjunk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c42gp0d02j85ikcliuecd820rnsuj1cakf@4ax.com...
> Court TV said that the judge was present when this occurred and that
> in his estimation it was "manipulation" of the evidence, which is
> permitted, rather than "experimentation," which is not. Fine line,
> probably, but I'd bet Delucchi didn't see anything he thought was
> improper or he would have called a quick halt to it. He comes through
> with shining colors, from what I've heard, unlike good old Judge Ito.
>
> Margie
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:00:03 -0800, "Eliyahu Rooff"
> <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
rather,[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
was[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| >The misconduct I referred to wasn't part of the dismissals, but, rather,
>has to do with reports that jurors climbed in and out of the boat and
>tried rocking it. They aren't allowed to conduct experiments on their
>own or to perform tests that weren't done in court.
>
>Eliyahu
You're right that this may be a problem, but not because of the jurors. The
judge allowed them to do this. If there's an appeal issue in there, it should
be with regard to his action.
Sandi
| |
| Margie 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Apparently there is some disagreement about exactly what the jurors
did. The judge was present when they examined the boat. I believe
it's the defense who claimed they "rocked the boat." I doubt the
judge would have allowed them to do that.
Margie
On 15 Nov 2004 02:20:42 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
wrote:
>
>You're right that this may be a problem, but not because of the jurors. The
>judge allowed them to do this. If there's an appeal issue in there, it should
>be with regard to his action.
>
>Sandi
| |
| RaeMorrill 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| > The judge was present when they examined the boat. I believe
>it's the defense who claimed they "rocked the boat." I doubt the
>judge would have allowed them to do that.>>
You'd think the judge would have noticed if they actually got in it and started
playing with it that way. OTOH, I can't see why a jury shouldn't be able to at
least test how easy it is to tip over. Was it in the water at the time?
Rae Morrill in Maine
"Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
_______________________________
Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL TOSSPAM!
| |
| Margie 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| No, it was in a parking garage, attached to a truck.
Margie
On 15 Nov 2004 17:04:30 GMT, raemorrill@aol.com.com (RaeMorrill)
wrote:
>
>You'd think the judge would have noticed if they actually got in it and started
>playing with it that way. OTOH, I can't see why a jury shouldn't be able to at
>least test how easy it is to tip over. Was it in the water at the time?
>
>Rae Morrill in Maine
>"Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
>_______________________________
>Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL TOSSPAM!
>
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-16, 4:28 pm |
| Which brings me back to that video also. When they did the video that showed
the boat could tip it was moored and not out in open water so it was biased
from the get-go, whether it was for or against. When Inside Edition did
their video demo it was out in open water and did not even come close to
tipping or the guy falling out when tossing the deadweight over the side.
Dani
"RaeMorrill" <raemorrill@aol.com.com> wrote in message
news:20041115120430.21555.00000603@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
> You'd think the judge would have noticed if they actually got in it and
started
> playing with it that way. OTOH, I can't see why a jury shouldn't be able
to at
> least test how easy it is to tip over. Was it in the water at the time?
>
> Rae Morrill in Maine
> "Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
> _______________________________
> Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL
TOSSPAM!
>
>
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-16, 4:29 pm |
| Note that it's 4 p.m. EST. That's 1:00 p.m. for those of us on the
left coast and other times for those who live somewhere in
between...
Eliyahu
"Barbara OBrien Smith" <bsptss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112143152.00289.00000455@mb-m17.aol.com...
| They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-17, 11:10 am |
| And how long was the deliberation after the foreman was replaced? Seems a
quick verdict those who are hoping for not guilty. I know they've been in
deliberation for a while anyway, but if they had to (of course they follow
instructions) start all over then isn't it fairly quick?
Dani
"Barbara OBrien Smith" <bsptss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112143152.00289.00000455@mb-m17.aol.com...
> They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-17, 11:10 am |
| Thanks for clearing it up as I'm central time here and may not have thought
about which coast they were reporting from.
Dani
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2vkhvdF2mc6htU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Note that it's 4 p.m. EST. That's 1:00 p.m. for those of us on the
> left coast and other times for those who live somewhere in
> between...
>
> Eliyahu
>
> "Barbara OBrien Smith" <bsptss@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041112143152.00289.00000455@mb-m17.aol.com...
> | They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
>
>
| |
| Margie 2004-11-18, 11:12 am |
| Even Chris Pixley, one of the most staunch defense attorney
commentators, has said that he doesn't think juror dismissals will be
part of any appeal. And Judge Delucchi, who was brought out of
retirement to try this case because he's so good at it, isn't about to
create any situations that would stand up on appeal. I believe we
will see that he covered his bases very adequately.
Margie
On 14 Nov 2004 20:04:54 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
wrote:
>
>I'm sure it will be included. But in the coverage I watched it was speculated
>that this judge covered the two dismissals very carefully on the record (which
>isn't public yet).
>
>Sandi
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-18, 11:12 am |
| But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
Dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and why?
>
> I say innocent.
>
> There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the rest of
> the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that they
> turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7 kicked off.
> There were also reports that he was insisting they go through the case
> piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the jurors
> wanted to get on with it.
>
> Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate that a
> majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6 was
> reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first juror that
> got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott was
> guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
> negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms and
> sighing.
>
> The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four hours. I
> don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death penalty
> case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing the
> evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
>
> I may be wrong.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-18, 11:12 am |
| I don't know. The OJ jury was out in under four hours too.
I would tend to think it depends on the preponderance of evidence. If
there is a case with strong evidence then I would assume the jury would
go guilty quicker as you describe. If there is no real evidence or the
jury has discounted the evidence presented, then I'd say they're more
likely to lean towards innocence in a short time frame.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
djgordon wrote:
> But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
> years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
> isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
> a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
>
> Dani
>
> "Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
> news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>
>
>
>
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-18, 11:12 am |
| Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are saying
they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:Ur2dnb_GN9J5gQjcRVn-jA@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I don't know. The OJ jury was out in under four hours too.
>
> I would tend to think it depends on the preponderance of evidence. If
> there is a case with strong evidence then I would assume the jury would
> go guilty quicker as you describe. If there is no real evidence or the
> jury has discounted the evidence presented, then I'd say they're more
> likely to lean towards innocence in a short time frame.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> djgordon wrote:
couple[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a couple
>years since I was right up close and personal in the legal environment, but
>isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more hopes of
>a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
>
>Dani
Actually the conventional wisdom is the opposite - well, sort of. Short
verdict tends to come down not guilty, longer verdicts guilty, and of course
longer ones are the only ones that result in hung juries.
Sandi
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
|
"SANDITYPES" <sanditypes@aol.comshazbot> wrote in message
news:20041112154127.16116.00000595@mb-m02.aol.com...
| >Well I see quite a few of the reporters on Court Tv right now are
saying
| >they thing it will be guilty on murder 2.
| >
| >dani
| >
|
| That's what I said. Guilty of murder 2, but I think it won't hold
up on appeal
| and he'll end up with a new trial eventually.
|
| That's just my prediction, of course.
|
The other question is, what will be the next Trial de jour? Who will
be the next victim of trial by media? After all, from a legal POV
there's absolutly nothing in the Peterson case to make it of special
interest -- no groundbreaking issues of fact or law, no
constitutional questions of significance that haven't already been
decided elsewhere, and, in fact, no reason that we should be
particularly interested other than that the news media decided to
grab it and run with it.
Eliyahu
| |
| Tomnorden 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >In this case I think they wanted to get the man who cheated on
>8-month pregnant Laci.
Cheating is one thing, murdering her and the unborn baby is quite another.
Marie
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| Depends a lot on the length of the trial and strength of the
evidence. Usually when a jury is out for more than an hour or two,
they're getting into "prosecutor's time."
Eliyahu
"djgordon" <danigordon@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fV8ld.10533$WC6.9367@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| But that's what I was asking. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a
couple
| years since I was right up close and personal in the legal
environment, but
| isn't it supposed to be that the shorter the deliberation the more
hopes of
| a guilty and the longer, the more hopes of an innocent or hung?
|
| Dani
|
| "Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
| news:zcudnTgDCZD2hwjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
| > Okay, everyone it's an hour away. What are the predictions and
why?
| >
| > I say innocent.
| >
| > There were reports that the foreman excused himself because the
rest of
| > the jury had turned against him. There were also reports that
they
| > turned against him because he was the one that got Juror #7
kicked off.
| > There were also reports that he was insisting they go through
the case
| > piece by piece, refusing to take a vote while the rest of the
jurors
| > wanted to get on with it.
| >
| > Juror #6 was voted in as the new foreman. That could indicate
that a
| > majority of the other jurors agreed with his stance. Juror #6
was
| > reported to be friends with Justin Falconer. (He's the first
juror that
| > got booted who told news shows later that he didn't think Scott
was
| > guilty of murder.) Juror #6 also was reported to have displayed
| > negative body language to the prosecution, by crossing his arms
and
| > sighing.
| >
| > The new improved jury has been deliberating for about four
hours. I
| > don't think that's enough time for a guilty verdict in a death
penalty
| > case. I think they'd have spent more time in chambers reviewing
the
| > evidence, if they were voting to take someone's life or freedom.
| >
| > I may be wrong.
| >
| > Mike DeTuri
| > http://www.deturi.com
| >
| >
| > Barbara OBrien Smith wrote:
| > > They've just announced 4 PM the verdict will be read.
|
|
| |
| Im1whalen 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >The other question is, what will be the next Trial de jour?
What's happening with Michael Jackson?
| |
| VHOne 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| I used to be secty to one of the top criminal attys in the country and
generally if they stay out more than a few hours, the verdict is guilty; not
always, but generally. If they stay out an hour or less, it is usually not
guilty.
I have seen people walk for doing more due to lack of evidence and you knew
they were guilty, so I really did not think this guy was going to get what was
coming.
They will most likely try and appeal of some sort. They all do.
OTOH, I have seen innocent people being found guilty with no evidence...not
often, but it does happen.
Vickie
>
>Correction, I quoted Vinny Politan on CourtTV earlier about the 4 hours.
> FOX said the final 12 deliberated for about 8 hours before the verdict.
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| The public is especially interested in controversy, scandal, sex, and
lies. In this case I think they wanted to get the man who cheated on
8-month pregnant Laci.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
> The public really doesn't care about groundbreaking legal issues or
> constitutional questions; you and I would find that stuff interesting, but most
> people are interested in people.
>
> Sandi
| |
| Phyllis 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| I agree with you, and to this day, I believe that is why some folks
still believe O.J. Simpson is guilty (no, I don't know if he is or isn't
because I wasn't there and no one else was either, and I realize some
folks have other reasons). This should be a warning to cheatin' men
everywhere.
Mike DeTuri wrote:
> I agree. Unfortunately, in this case there was only evidence for the
> cheating. Like I said, I guess that's enough for some people.
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> Tomnorden wrote:
>
>
| |
| Mike DeTuri 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| Then again, it's a jury. The judge decides what they see. Because of
this, they could have had less information than I did.
Mike DeTuri
http://www.deturi.com
SANDITYPES wrote:
>
>
> You already said that you hadn't read all of the transcripts and evidence. You
> reckon maybe the jurors actually had more information that you did?
>
> Sandi
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >Nevertheless, you can bet that juror misconduct will be one of several
>major issues in the appeal.
>
>Eliyahu
I'm sure it will be included. But in the coverage I watched it was speculated
that this judge covered the two dismissals very carefully on the record (which
isn't public yet).
Sandi
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| The misconduct I referred to wasn't part of the dismissals, but, rather,
has to do with reports that jurors climbed in and out of the boat and
tried rocking it. They aren't allowed to conduct experiments on their
own or to perform tests that weren't done in court.
Eliyahu
"Margie" <nomoremargiesjunk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iimfp05ig19bcutrp4gn2rm7356u6dkkpt@4ax.com...
> Even Chris Pixley, one of the most staunch defense attorney
> commentators, has said that he doesn't think juror dismissals will be
> part of any appeal. And Judge Delucchi, who was brought out of
> retirement to try this case because he's so good at it, isn't about to
> create any situations that would stand up on appeal. I believe we
> will see that he covered his bases very adequately.
>
> Margie
>
> On 14 Nov 2004 20:04:54 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
> wrote:
>
several[vbcol=seagreen]
speculated[vbcol=seagreen]
record (which[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| Margie 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| Court TV said that the judge was present when this occurred and that
in his estimation it was "manipulation" of the evidence, which is
permitted, rather than "experimentation," which is not. Fine line,
probably, but I'd bet Delucchi didn't see anything he thought was
improper or he would have called a quick halt to it. He comes through
with shining colors, from what I've heard, unlike good old Judge Ito.
Margie
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:00:03 -0800, "Eliyahu Rooff"
<lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The misconduct I referred to wasn't part of the dismissals, but, rather,
>has to do with reports that jurors climbed in and out of the boat and
>tried rocking it. They aren't allowed to conduct experiments on their
>own or to perform tests that weren't done in court.
>
>Eliyahu
>
>"Margie" <nomoremargiesjunk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:iimfp05ig19bcutrp4gn2rm7356u6dkkpt@4ax.com...
>several
>speculated
>record (which
>
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >The misconduct I referred to wasn't part of the dismissals, but, rather,
>has to do with reports that jurors climbed in and out of the boat and
>tried rocking it. They aren't allowed to conduct experiments on their
>own or to perform tests that weren't done in court.
>
>Eliyahu
You're right that this may be a problem, but not because of the jurors. The
judge allowed them to do this. If there's an appeal issue in there, it should
be with regard to his action.
Sandi
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >I heard the final 12 jurors didn't ask to review any of the evidence in
>the case while deliberating. In a case of this size with this many
>witnesses, don't you find that odd?
>
>Mike DeTuri
Not really. Remember 10 of those final 12 were original jurors and DID review
other evidence. Also, when it comes to testimony, they only tend to ask for
readbacks if there is a dispute as to what testimony was. They are supposed to
use their own notes and memories to review pertinent testimony as much as
possible. As you pointed out several times, this is a primarily circumstantial
case and so the bulk of their discussion likely centered around the testimony
rather than the physical evidence.
Sandi
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-20, 11:24 am |
| >Are you saying that once the final 12 were seated they didn't start over
>with deliberations as instructed by the judge?
>
>Mike DeTuri
Of course. In practical terms you can't unring the bell.
Sandi
| |
| Margie 2004-11-20, 11:25 am |
| Apparently there is some disagreement about exactly what the jurors
did. The judge was present when they examined the boat. I believe
it's the defense who claimed they "rocked the boat." I doubt the
judge would have allowed them to do that.
Margie
On 15 Nov 2004 02:20:42 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
wrote:
>
>You're right that this may be a problem, but not because of the jurors. The
>judge allowed them to do this. If there's an appeal issue in there, it should
>be with regard to his action.
>
>Sandi
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2004-11-20, 11:25 am |
| That doesn't mean that it won't be challenged, though -- just that
they're likely to include "abuse of discretion" for the judge allowing
it.
Eliyahu
"Margie" <nomoremargiesjunk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c42gp0d02j85ikcliuecd820rnsuj1cakf@4ax.com...
> Court TV said that the judge was present when this occurred and that
> in his estimation it was "manipulation" of the evidence, which is
> permitted, rather than "experimentation," which is not. Fine line,
> probably, but I'd bet Delucchi didn't see anything he thought was
> improper or he would have called a quick halt to it. He comes through
> with shining colors, from what I've heard, unlike good old Judge Ito.
>
> Margie
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:00:03 -0800, "Eliyahu Rooff"
> <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
rather,[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
was[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-20, 11:25 am |
| It's not ignoring in the strict sense of the word, though. It's like Sandi
and I both said, you can't undo what's been done. They could have gone back
in that deliberation room, said, okay, let's start at the beginning and then
talked about everything from day one to finish. However, that doesn't mean
they could change the views already conceived in their minds and as far as I
know, no one has access to anyone's private thoughts.
Dani
"Mike DeTuri" <seemy@webpage.com> wrote in message
news:PfednWtHxO_SEArcRVn-oQ@adelphia.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Just checking. I had heard that the deliberations were recorded, but
> are sealed. Wouldn't ignoring explicit instructions like this from the
> judge increase the chance of a mistrial and make an appeal more likely
> to go through?
>
> Mike DeTuri
> http://www.deturi.com
>
>
> SANDITYPES wrote:
| |
| SANDITYPES 2004-11-20, 11:25 am |
| >Just checking. I had heard that the deliberations were recorded, but
>are sealed. Wouldn't ignoring explicit instructions like this from the
>judge increase the chance of a mistrial and make an appeal more likely
>to go through?
As far as I know, deliberations are NEVER recorded. I don't know how a judge
would determine whether his instruction to start over was ignored, because as
far as I know, every jury in every case starts in their own way. Some take a
vote and go from there. Some just started discussing the case. And so on.
What I was saying is, 10 of those people had seen things that they in
particular had asked to see. It doens't necessarily follow that in order to
"start over," the other two would want to see those same things.
Sandi
| |
| Margie 2004-11-20, 11:25 am |
| Even Chris Pixley, one of the most staunch defense attorney
commentators, has said that he doesn't think juror dismissals will be
part of any appeal. And Judge Delucchi, who was brought out of
retirement to try this case because he's so good at it, isn't about to
create any situations that would stand up on appeal. I believe we
will see that he covered his bases very adequately.
Margie
On 14 Nov 2004 20:04:54 GMT, sanditypes@aol.comshazbot (SANDITYPES)
wrote:
>
>I'm sure it will be included. But in the coverage I watched it was speculated
>that this judge covered the two dismissals very carefully on the record (which
>isn't public yet).
>
>Sandi
| |
| Margie 2004-11-21, 11:19 am |
| No, it was in a parking garage, attached to a truck.
Margie
On 15 Nov 2004 17:04:30 GMT, raemorrill@aol.com.com (RaeMorrill)
wrote:
>
>You'd think the judge would have noticed if they actually got in it and started
>playing with it that way. OTOH, I can't see why a jury shouldn't be able to at
>least test how easy it is to tip over. Was it in the water at the time?
>
>Rae Morrill in Maine
>"Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
>_______________________________
>Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL TOSSPAM!
>
| |
| djgordon 2004-11-21, 11:19 am |
| Which brings me back to that video also. When they did the video that showed
the boat could tip it was moored and not out in open water so it was biased
from the get-go, whether it was for or against. When Inside Edition did
their video demo it was out in open water and did not even come close to
tipping or the guy falling out when tossing the deadweight over the side.
Dani
"RaeMorrill" <raemorrill@aol.com.com> wrote in message
news:20041115120430.21555.00000603@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
> You'd think the judge would have noticed if they actually got in it and
started
> playing with it that way. OTOH, I can't see why a jury shouldn't be able
to at
> least test how easy it is to tip over. Was it in the water at the time?
>
> Rae Morrill in Maine
> "Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
> _______________________________
> Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL
TOSSPAM!
>
>
|
| |
|
|