judge denies motion for mistrial but has said if anybody from family or supporters of Petit approach jurors again he will be ruthless in banning them from court
it has given Komisarjevsky possible appellate route which once again will prolong the Petit families agony if they have to relive it again
It gives a possible appeal issue, but they'll have to show it affected the witness testimony. The juror that was spoken to should just be dismissed and replaced with an alternate. This all shouldnt drag out the appeal process since all the issues are brought at the same time.
On another note, the jury should not be using the same entrance at the same time as the general public. In such a high profile case, it seems odd they are doing it that way.
So here comes the testimony about where gasoline was found. Gasoline was found on the pants of JK. I'm sure defense will come up with an explanation, but certainly the jury is going to likely believe it got there from pouring the gas around the house.
:innocent: Just a tiny point of interest: The entrance to the courts (yep, MANY floors in the building and MANY types of cases are heard/presented here) often has "traffic congestion" at certain time periods BUT the area if monitored by marshalls. Legal reps., visitors, potential jurors, & witnesses enter through the same entrance, there is an employee entrance and of course, the entrance for those under commitment status. Naturally one enters and undergoes the good ole metal screening, those with frequent judicial business (aka KNOWN BY THE MARSHALLS BY SIGHT (read: LE, ME, FD, ASA) are often "scooped" out of line and shuffled thru a MANUAL check when the line is L O N G.
ALL JURORS in EVERY trial ARE GIVEN IDENTIFICATION that is EXPECTED to be VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES, especially emphasized that it be observable when the juror is "OUTSIDE" (lunch, breaks, evacuations!).
:twocents: My take on the comment: a congrats for serving, THAT's it! :rocker: 'specially since NO FURTHER classification of the "serving" was rendered!
PS: fightening thought: there were many students present FRIDAY.............from a criminal justice program :banghead: :waitasec: :banghead:
if defence is going to argue the gasoline eveidence they need to focus on his gloves, as if no gas on his gloves it means he never touched the containers to pour the gas
Thanks for the info. I still think the judge should be doing more to protect the integrity of the jury. Especially in light of the allegations of the defense already. I would have the jury meet at specific time and have bailiffs bring them in an employee entrance. I dont think the statement made is likely to reverse/remand the case, but it would be better to just avoid the temptation for it to happen again.
I'm sure that will be a major focus of the defense, in closing if nothing else.
I guess there is no reason that gasoline would have HAD to have gotten on his gloves. The jugs weren't normal gas cans, so if Hayes had filled them at the station by putting the nozzle inside the jug and hadn't spilled, there wouldn't have been any gas on the outside of the jugs. I've also wondered if JK didnt have more than one pair of gloves.
is this being televised somewhere?
What kind of containers were they? I forget.
These two are animals. Absolutely animals.
This is purely human. Animals are not this cruel.