With this case, I have learned not to make any predictions. I am interested in why you think the timing of this becoming public would be a whole different situation. Leaking information about the trial (if that indeed happened) is the same whenever it happens or becomes public knowledge. Do you mean that at this stage you think JS won't do anything but let the appealate courts sort it out if it is determined that there was jury misconduct? Just curious.
SBI probe into possible juror misconduct
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
JMO, If it was that easy to have a 1st degree murder conviction thrown out none would stand. After a verdict has been reached it is very hard to overturn. JS jumped right on it and did what he wa s supposed to. I await the resolution, JY will not get another trial. IMOO?
that's what I've been reading too Talina.
I heard IS re-interview the foreperson of the jury yesterday and she said it was a small jury room where they all just fit at the table and she knows nobody was using their cell phones during the actual deliberations. She also said she had not received her letter as of yet but was confident in her fellow jurors that they took this too seriously to have broken the rules.
did anyone else hear that interview?
janesdean
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 0
In Remmer v. U.S., the United States Supreme Court first established the basic rule on external communications with jurors, stating:[A]ny private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant.
The Court later receded from the presumption of prejudice took the view that a party alleging improper juror communications must demonstrate actual prejudice. In Smith v. Phillips, the Court observed:
[D]ue process does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a potentially compromising situation. Were that the rule, few trials would be constitutionally acceptable t is virtually impossible to shield jurors from every contact or influence that might theoretically affect their vote. Due process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen. The party raising the alleged external communication must show by competent evidence that the extrajudicial communication was more than a mere innocuous intervention. If this burden is satisfied, the other party must then prove that there is no reasonable possibility that the jurys verdict was influenced by the communication. The question is whether there was any contact, communication, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during trial about a matter that was before the jury.
http://www.thefederation.org/documents/18.Juror Misconduct and Social Media-Kiernan.pdf
The Court later receded from the presumption of prejudice took the view that a party alleging improper juror communications must demonstrate actual prejudice. In Smith v. Phillips, the Court observed:
[D]ue process does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a potentially compromising situation. Were that the rule, few trials would be constitutionally acceptable t is virtually impossible to shield jurors from every contact or influence that might theoretically affect their vote. Due process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen. The party raising the alleged external communication must show by competent evidence that the extrajudicial communication was more than a mere innocuous intervention. If this burden is satisfied, the other party must then prove that there is no reasonable possibility that the jurys verdict was influenced by the communication. The question is whether there was any contact, communication, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during trial about a matter that was before the jury.
http://www.thefederation.org/documents/18.Juror Misconduct and Social Media-Kiernan.pdf
Which is precisely why many of them do not speak publicly after a verdict. I can't say that I blame them.
I like seeing them all together, being questioned as a group, where a question is asked - one will answer, another will expound, another will clarify, etc.
There is no room for all of what is going on right now with varying recants of this count, that count, this consideration, that, etc. One person's reason for something might be totally different and not even considered by the other. Now, with this misconduct investigation, everything any of them say is going to be parsed word by word looking for something out of place.
I think they should just all be quiet now until this investigation is concluded. Not because of hiding anything but just to keep their comments and recitals of the process they went through from being misquoted, out of context, etc. They can give all their interviews in a few weeks.
IMO
nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 217
this thread is about the sbi investigation into facebook posts that are unsubstantiated pending sbi investigation not anything else... we are not going to bash the jury members.. thanks folks
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Hmmm....
Comments taken out of context. Media takes snippets of something said and turns it into a pithy headline. People read the media reports and think it's gospel. Or they watch the news snippet and hear a few words and nuance the meaning and start a diatribe on that. It's like a world of Emily Litellas (Gilda Radner/SNL reference for those confused).
People clamor for jurors to talk and give their thoughts. Then, when jurors do just that, their comments are parsed and the verbal attacks begin.
Typical and Expected.
We live in a world in which the average attention span is less than the length of a Twitter message (140 characters or less). Comprehension is somewhere around a 6th grade level.
Knowing how selective hearing works and how statements get twisted, I stand by my assertion I would remain silent and never speak about my verdict in any case.
Comments taken out of context. Media takes snippets of something said and turns it into a pithy headline. People read the media reports and think it's gospel. Or they watch the news snippet and hear a few words and nuance the meaning and start a diatribe on that. It's like a world of Emily Litellas (Gilda Radner/SNL reference for those confused).
People clamor for jurors to talk and give their thoughts. Then, when jurors do just that, their comments are parsed and the verbal attacks begin.
Typical and Expected.
We live in a world in which the average attention span is less than the length of a Twitter message (140 characters or less). Comprehension is somewhere around a 6th grade level.
Knowing how selective hearing works and how statements get twisted, I stand by my assertion I would remain silent and never speak about my verdict in any case.
terminatrixator
All Posts JMO - May Godspeed Justice for Janet and
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,524
- Reaction score
- 11
Hmmm....
Comments taken out of context. Media takes snippets of something said and turns it into a pithy headline. People read it and think it's gospel.
Typical.
I've noticed a lot of news reports where the reporter says "jurors" instead of "a juror" which is bugging me a lot.
nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 217
if you are posting about anything other than the sbi investigation into facebook postings and your post is no longer here it was moved to the other thread.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
I think it's pointless to argue about what **advertiser censored* juror may have said when giving an interview about *their* verdict in this case. JMO I think all that does is muddy the water and result in yet more rumor and innuendo. After all, these people aren't professional speakers. They aren't accustomed to being interviewed on TV. Their words taken out of context, etc. I prefer to wait for the SBI investigation to conclude and hear their findings. JMO. I'm content in the knowledge that the killer is behind bars where he belongs, and none of us know anything more about this, nor will we until the investigation is complete. MOO
mck16
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 8
Can anyone give an educated statement as to how long this investigation could last. Are there any precedents to research? tia
hindsight2020
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 32
Correct terminatrixator. . .Take this headline:
Jurors: Lacking physical evidence pointed to Jason Young's guilt
^^How is the general public to interpret this headline, if I am reading it correctly, it states there was no physical evidence, therefore, jurors found JY guilty, it’s sensationalism, media wants to keep the story in the news.
The public feeds on this and spins yet more of their own headlines to fit their own misguided theories, lol. . .go figure.
There was an article someone quoted yesterday saying it could be a few days or a few weeks. The juror issue in the Cooper trial took a morning to resolve. It really just depends on how quickly SBI can get the things they need to get.
My *guess* is that the Judge will inform the attorneys on either side of the outcome in chambers (i.e. no press). If it's nothing, then we'll likely get an article saying it was nothing, and that'll be it. If it's something, the Judge may hold a hearing for the motion for mistrial (since it will all need to be on record). That would likely be televised, if wral gets advance notice.
I don't know of any precedent in recent time in NC. It just doesn't happen too often here.
hindsight2020
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 32
Jurors shouldn't be allowed to talk to the media without an attorney, lol.
Thanks, Wolfpack.. I can't find any precedent in recent times in NC either. I would think this might take more than a few days to be honest. MOO
That actually happens a lot! And I've been in a few cases where people who aren't even a party in a case will bring an attorney, if they have to get on the stand!
I was one of those saying the jurors should speak out, because I was interested. I truly appreciate their honesty and integrity in the process. And one thing I can't do is malign how they got to their verdict.
NCEast
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 7
I have stayed out of this SBI probe thread because of exactly what you wrote Glee. I will read on here and certainly follow along with the news but until the SBI completes their investigation and makes it public none of us knows anything for certain. I don't like that this issue has arisen but I'm going to take it with a grain of salt until or unless the investigation creates the need for a retrial--which I doubt.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
IMO the news media and talking heads do more harm then good by spreading yet more rumors, when they too, don't know any more then the rest of us. And often times they get things all wrong. Unless and until the investigation is complete, they should simply report there *is* an investigation ongoing, and not speculate as to what *they* think happened or didn't happen. All that does is malign this jury further, IMO, spread more rumors, and single out jurors when they have no idea what they are reporting is true or false. MOO I long for the days of the original Court TV, when the coverage was far more complete, commercials were taken at appropriate places in the trial/testimony, and the cases didn't turn into media events, but rather a way for we common citizens to observe the trial process. These days it's become like sporting events, people cheering on one side or the other. MOO
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
There are really two separate issues (or topics).
1. The SBI probe into possible juror communication to someone during the deliberation process.
2. The jurors' public comments and interviews about how each of them reached their G verdict and what the process was like for them.
These two things have gotten munged together as if there is some misconduct about how the jurors came to their guilty verdict.
The only issue being investigated by the SBI is if any juror communicated to someone outside the jury during their deliberations, as claimed by a friend of a hairdresser of a juror on Facebook.
The jurors' arrival at their verdict is not under investigation, though their comments are being publicly attacked on some mainstream and social media sites.
1. The SBI probe into possible juror communication to someone during the deliberation process.
2. The jurors' public comments and interviews about how each of them reached their G verdict and what the process was like for them.
These two things have gotten munged together as if there is some misconduct about how the jurors came to their guilty verdict.
The only issue being investigated by the SBI is if any juror communicated to someone outside the jury during their deliberations, as claimed by a friend of a hairdresser of a juror on Facebook.
The jurors' arrival at their verdict is not under investigation, though their comments are being publicly attacked on some mainstream and social media sites.
- Status