______________________________________________
Judge Lama is going to have to brutalize the jury, if necessary, to secure unanimity.
To wit:
Scarce countenance given to whining from the jury foreman, or complaints by members about "ganging-up, "brow-beating", raised voices, disparaging comments. Of course, there's no place in the jury room for racism, sexism, nor for a bunch of other buzz words aka"triggers" that may be disingenuously proffered to obstruct progress.
His Honor in my view has a profound duty to secure a verdict here. No mamby-pamby, "Sorry judge, we just can't do it! Why can't we go home? We'll never all agree, either way!
Pray it follows:
"NO WAY! DO YOUR DUTY!
I'LL KNOW, AND I WILL SO DETERMINE
WHEN YOU HAVE DONE THIS!" *
Lama J.
*NB Firm. Terse. Resolute. Unvarnished. ->
check<-
Hmm...
On review, such bold direction to the jury in a capital case as signal as this one just
might find its way into a future
Pacific Reporter. Affirmed or reversed, regardless, this would be a hat-plume.
Better still if a dissent and/or a separate concurring opinion is tacked on. That's when you know whatever you did, it was at least novel enough to engender some banter in the rare appellate air.
->aimvho<-