SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[NCB]

In the cooper case during the state's case in chief allegedly one of the jurors was talking to one of their friends about the case. And that friend allegedly then talked to her hairdresser about what she was hearing from the juror. One of the hairdresser's other clients happened to be a witness in the cooper case and supposedly the hairdresser passed along that someone on the jury was talking about the case to a friend.

And the witness with the hairdresser in common then let JA know and then JA emailed the DA's office and gave them the info in case there was something to it.

WCSO sent a deputy out to investigate that was as far as it went.

Theme: hairdressers!

Sheesh, I had no idea it was so involved...

 

[wenwe4]

To quote my 4 yr old nephew this morning . . . he replied to his parents (after being reprimanded) . . . "Alright, Alright, Calm Down People!"

 

[~n/t~]

To quote my 4 yr old nephew this morning . . . he replied to his parents (after being reprimanded) . . . "Alright, Alright, Calm Down People!"

Priceless! :floorlaugh:

 

[Talina]

To quote my 4 yr old nephew this morning . . . he replied to his parents (after being reprimanded) . . . "Alright, Alright, Calm Down People!"

:rocker: :floorlaugh: I'll second that.

 

[Wolfpack]

You guys are cracking me up today!

 

[IlliniFan]

To quote my 4 yr old nephew this morning . . . he replied to his parents (after being reprimanded) . . . "Alright, Alright, Calm Down People!"

Too, cute!!! ~grins

 

[borndem]

WRAL said that one of their Facebook posters said that their hairdresser said that their friend is on the jury and.......blah blah blah! 3 degrees of hearsay! Hearsay isn't allowed in the court of law, but apparently anyone can state anything to trigger an investigation through hearsay. Amazing. :waitasec: If there was direct evidence reported to the court supporting the claim, then shame on that juror, but this is dangerous territory that the courts would give such credibility to third degree hearsay! JMO, IMO, MOO

I agree, CGW, and further -- This hearsay-to-hearsay reporting dealt with numbers. Apparently there were a couple of votes mentioned, such as (and I am not trying to quote what was said, since I did not pay that much attention to it) "the first vote was 7 to 5 NG, and then it was 9 to 3 G," or whatever. How could 2 series of numbers be passed from this person to that person and then written-up on facebook or golo or wherever -- accurately? Think about it, folks...

That's very detailed data to remember perfectly, seems to me. I was good at algebra, trig, calculus, statistics and accounting in HS & college, but those kinds of numbers, for me at least, would have gone in one ear & out the other, as they say. I know my hairdresser pretty well; I've been going to him for 10 yrs or so, and we talk, talk talk, but it's chit-chat, and not something I would make a mental note about. I would never be able to recite something like that accurately even within a short period of time after hearing it unless I wrote it down. Something the hairdresser said? Nope. Nyet. Not I.

Just sayin' that's the way I am also about sports scores, etc. I know who won, and whether it was by a little or a lot, but certainly not always accurate with the specifics. Life is too short...

But that's just me.

 

[CGW]

I agree, CGW, and further -- This hearsay-to-hearsay reporting dealt with numbers. Apparently there were a couple of votes mentioned, such as (and I am not trying to quote what was said, since I did not pay that much attention to it) "the first vote was 7 to 5 NG, and then it was 9 to 3 G," or whatever. How could 2 series of numbers be passed from this person to that person and then written-up on facebook or golo or wherever -- accurately? Think about it, folks...

That's very detailed data to remember perfectly, seems to me. I was good at algebra, trig, calculus, statistics and accounting in HS & college, but those kinds of numbers, for me at least, would have gone in one ear & out the other, as they say. I know my hairdresser pretty well; I've been going to him for 10 yrs or so, and we talk, talk talk, but it's chit-chat, and not something I would make a mental note about. I would never be able to recite something like that accurately even within a short period of time after hearing it unless I wrote it down. Something the hairdresser said? Nope. Nyet. Not I.

Just sayin' that's the way I am also about sports scores, etc. I know who won, and whether it was by a little or a lot, but certainly not always accurate with the specifics. Life is too short...

But that's just me.

Yep, I hear ya! But, it should be noted that the "rumor" had a large number of NG votes in the mix and the jury forewoman clearly said there were NEVER any NG's in the mix in the deliberations (maybe just 1, but not for long). So the info was indeed not accurate, which is all the more concerning why they gave credibility to this report. I'm also wondering IF (and that's a BIG "IF") there was a juror that relayed the score to a friend, did they do so thinking that they were "technically" not DISCUSSING the case and the facts, and were simply reporting the vote (ie, not engaging in conversation about case details). Still wrong IMO if it happened, but maybe not to the degree that it impacted jury deliberations and the outcome. An online dictionary definition of "discussion" is: [Noun] Conversation or debate concerning a particular topic. I'm not sure there was any back and forth conversation regarding the topic of the JY case with said juror and hairdresser...that remains to be seen. JMO.

 

[borndem]

Yep, I hear ya! But, it should be noted that the "rumor" had a large number of NG votes in the mix and the jury forewoman clearly said there were NEVER any NG's in the mix in the deliberations (maybe just 1, but not for long). So the info was indeed not accurate, which is all the more concerning why they gave credibility to this report. I'm also wondering IF (and that's a BIG "IF") there was a juror that relayed the score to a friend, did they do so thinking that they were "technically" not DISCUSSING the case and the facts, and were simply reporting the vote (ie, not engaging in conversation about case details). Still wrong IMO if it happened, but maybe not to the degree that it impacted jury deliberations and the outcome. An online dictionary definition of "discussion" is: [Noun] Conversation or debate concerning a particular topic. I'm not sure there was any back and forth conversation regarding the topic of the JY case with said juror and hairdresser...that remains to be seen. JMO.

Good ponts, IMO, CGW! And yes, I do remember seeing the interview with the forewoman, who seemed reasonable and pretty sharp, imo, to me, and she did not, indeed, mention NG votes. For me, NG and undecided are like "no" and "maybe" -- not the same at all.

Yes, your words above were a good discourse (since I guess a conversation is like a tango -- apparently "it takes two"!!)

 

[MyBelle]

Yep, I hear ya! But, it should be noted that the "rumor" had a large number of NG votes in the mix and the jury forewoman clearly said there were NEVER any NG's in the mix in the deliberations (maybe just 1, but not for long). So the info was indeed not accurate, which is all the more concerning why they gave credibility to this report. I'm also wondering IF (and that's a BIG "IF") there was a juror that relayed the score to a friend, did they do so thinking that they were "technically" not DISCUSSING the case and the facts, and were simply reporting the vote (ie, not engaging in conversation about case details). Still wrong IMO if it happened, but maybe not to the degree that it impacted jury deliberations and the outcome. An online dictionary definition of "discussion" is: [Noun] Conversation or debate concerning a particular topic. I'm not sure there was any back and forth conversation regarding the topic of the JY case with said juror and hairdresser...that remains to be seen. JMO.

Considering the Judge has requested the SBI conduct a criminal investigation, I think there is more to it than just a rumor. The Judge made it clear to the jurors they were not to communicate with anyone about the case. He wants to know the extent of it, which is why he's investigating all of them, imo.

 

[cody100]

Yes, this is more than a rumor like the Cooper case. The numbers seemed to be right but the G,NG designations seemed off. The extent of the the misconduct will no doubt be thoroughly examined by the SBI. Hopefully it is nothing. Nobody wants to see jury misconduct and inappropriate behavior anytime during a trial, but particularly during deliberations. However, at this point, nothing has been proven or disproven.

 

[Luna24]

SBI begins probe...article says it could take a few days or weeks to investigate.

Right now, another trial seems a remote possibility especially if the SBI tracks down the sources of the online comments about jurors and they confess it was all made up.

However, if investigators find that a juror did communicate with the outside world, that juror could be prosecuted for contempt.

The foreperson of the young jury told ABC11 that she believes the information in the posts that brought on the investigation was likely fabricated

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8572549

 

[Talina]

Considering the Judge has requested the SBI conduct a criminal investigation, I think there is more to it than just a rumor. The Judge made it clear to the jurors they were not to communicate with anyone about the case. He wants to know the extent of it, which is why he's investigating all of them, imo.

The judges own words in his letter to SBI and and to the jury forewoman do not sound as though he is concerned or believes there is any merit to it at this point.
Below is a link to the letters from the judge to SBI, WRAL and the jury forewoman. He even tells the jury forewoman "Do not be alarmed. This is not an entirely unusual event. Social media gossip postings frequently make unsubstantiated and unfounded heresay claims such as these." He also says

Because the judge has ordered an investigation does not at all suggest his level of belief in any of these allegations. He ordered the investigation because any allegation regardless of how authentic or outlandish it sounds, he is required to do so. He says so in his letter.


http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

 

[terminatrixator]

OT but still interesting

Drew Peterson defense team is trying to come up with ways to prevent or monitor Internet and social media use by jurors.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/attorney-internet-use-could-bias-jury-in-peterson-case/

 

[Ada]

Well, someone on this very forum claimed to know one of the alternates... They never claimed the person gave out any information, but how do we know.... I say it needs to be investigated....

I'm pretty sure if one of you or one of ur loved ones was on trial or had been on trial you would be all upset & want it investigated...

Now you wouldn't be thinking of sleuthing a WS member, would you?

To keep you from getting into trouble with the Big Cheeses (Big Cheese = Mod ), I'll reiterate what I said in that post, with a little more detail.

I know someone who was an alt. This person did not tell me they were an alt. I figured it out by their sudden absence following the choosing of the alts, and their sudden re-appearance the afternoon that the alts were dismissed by the judge.

During the trial, I had no contact with this alt, at all. No phone, text, social networking, whatever, none. I didn't even know, for sure, if they were one, except for my suspicion. When they re-appeared, Monday afternoon, I asked and they said they would not talk about it until after the verdict was read.

So, there you have it. If the SBI feels I'm worth investigating, I have no problem with talking to them. Since I don't have a cell phone, it might be difficult for them to check it for secret texts to my hairdresser.

Hopefully I have saved you from a Time Out.

:seeya:

ps: This particular person is, IMO, very honest and ethical. They do not believe that anyone from the Jury was texting info, as they feel that all of the Jurors were serious about the job. They will be very, very disappointed if they learn otherwise. Per our conversation, after the news broke and well after the verdict was read.

 

[Wolfpack]

OT but still interesting

Drew Peterson defense team is trying to come up with ways to prevent or monitor Internet and social media use by jurors.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/attorney-internet-use-could-bias-jury-in-peterson-case/

How will you ever find someone who agrees to be a juror if you spy on them? I can't see that being approved, or ending well.

I remember the Cooper foreman, didn't he say his wife would cut the articles out of the newspaper before she handed it to him? If only it weren't so difficult to find honest people like that man, and to be able to trust those called to keep their word.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

n/t: Sorry I got off onto proxy servers. To anwer your question, it is unknown at this point whether or not proxy servers were involved in this incident. (A proxy server is used when a person wants to post to a website or a Facebook page anonymously..... and the point of the article is they don't work. Not only do they not work, they leave the poster vulnerable to having their information captured by the folks who operate the proxy server.)

I will put it this way. The SBI should not have much of a problem in determining where the messages regarding "juror misconduct" came from - be they posted on the WRAL Facebook page or on the WRAL golo site.

Once SBI identifies where the original posts came from, they can then interview the poster(s) and then let the judge know what they found.

 

[terminatrixator]

How will you ever find someone who agrees to be a juror if you spy on them? I can't see that being approved, or ending well.

I remember the Cooper foreman, didn't he say his wife would cut the articles out of the newspaper before she handed it to him? If only it weren't so difficult to find honest people like that man, and to be able to trust those called to keep their word.

The Government doesn't have the money to sequester jurors and monitor their every moment and jurors don't like being sequestered and it's understandable, but you can't use a cell phone on a plane, and they should collect cell phones and hand them back at the end of the day.

In this day and age of information technology, I think there needs to be some sort of rules and the courts are going to have to deal with a whole lot more of real and imagined issues. In Florida a guy was on jury duty and looked the defendant up on Facebook and states he accidentally friended the defendant. He got sentenced to three days in jail for it. Of course, he should not have been researching the guy as a juror, but nobody can be that naive to think that all jurors are going to follow the rules. There's an issue here that needs to be addressed, imo.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think the judge should get in each juror's face, give him/her his best growl and say (Clint Eastwood style), "you talk to anyone, anywhere about this case, at any time before this case is over, you so much as text your mom or log in to your Facebook I will hunt you down and throw your azz in jail. You got that, punk?" (after all, this is Clint Eastwood we're talking about).

Too harsh? Just right? :waitasec:

 

[terminatrixator]

I think the judge should get in each juror's face, give him/her his best growl and say (Clint Eastwood style), "you talk to anyone, anywhere about this case, at any time before this case is over, you so much as text your mom or log in to your Facebook I will throw your azz in jail. You got that, punk?" (after all, this is Clint Eastwood we're talking about).

Too harsh? Just right? :waitasec:

I am not a judge, but I heard that I am scary enough to handle doing it if any court wants to hire me