Proposed New FL. Law-jurors can't profit from service

[msinformed]

Oh I know -- but it's a nice thought I'd give just about anything to keep Cindy quiet for the next 6 months.

Mel

Oh, how much I understand & agree with ya, Mel!!:rocker:

 

[sparkysmom]

I'm not sure if I understand why it would be only temporary.

If a juror is going to be influenced by financial gain does it matter when that financial gain will come? Isn't the money there either way?I am the type that will very much want to understand what happened once I'm ready to do so. I'm just not there yet. I can watch it on tv and I hear the words but my brain is not comprehending what the words mean or something like that.

It sickens me to think that ICA could be a free woman soon because of greed. Just sickens me. If a law like this permanently kept jurors from making money after the trial made it less likely that they would be doing interviews than so be it. I would much rather have monsters like ICA behind bars than understand why a jury decided to send her there.

Its bad enough that defense attorneys appear to be more interested in making money and winning than presenting their case ethically. But that makes me wonder if it is fair for the jury to be prohibited from making money while DTs are able to go out and make a small fortune when the trial is over.

This is a great thread, every one has raised awesome points. It makes me feel good that people are really motivated to make long needed changes, especially since everything about this case has just left me feeling so defeated and hopeless.

Bold by me...

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that since the public is quick to forget/forgive, coupled with the fact that there is always "the next big story" just around the corner, by the time any juror could potentially profit from their story, the media would not be as interested in it and therefore not pay as much. A story like this one is so agregious that I doubt it will die down soon, but you never know.

 

[msinformed]

It doesn't matter if a law goes into effect or not, some lawyer will find a loophole like always. It's so sad that EVERYTHING in today's world comes down to money, even the disgusting death of an innocent little girl.

BBM

Tis sad ............. we all know that old sayin', though, Money Talks, BS Walks!:maddening:

 

[dani]

This is a great idea! I do wish that juror pay wasn't so low, though, especially for cases where people have to be out of work for a very long time.

I wonder if they could write the law so that you can't profit from interviews but put a dollar amount on it. So, the most you can make is a thousand dollars total or something like that. Also, no profit for six months... I don't know, just thinking out loud here.

It definitely needs to be changed, no doubt about it.

I don't know if it an Oregon law, but where I work my company pays my regular pay while I serve on a jury, but I have to turn over the pay I receive as a juror to my company. :twocents:

 

[Marple]

I don't know if it an Oregon law, but where I work my company pays my regular pay while I serve on a jury, but I have to turn over the pay I receive as a juror to my company. :twocents:

Yeah, there was an earlier thread during jury selection where posters were discussing the benefits their company provided as far as jury pay. Yours is one of the good ones! Many don't provide jury pay at all, some provide for a limited time. The company I work for now provides three days of pay and after that I am on my own! It's sad since I do work for a major corporation and you would think they had better juror benefits. In FL, there is no law that compels companies to pay for jury duty but I believe it may be different in other states.

I just believe there are some very fair-minded potential jurors who are left out of the process due to their financial hardship.

 

[Talina]

I'm not sure about the timing, but in California, We the Jury was written by some of the jurors and published in 2007.

I wonder if the law came out after that. If you find anything, give us a shout.

Thanks!

Mel

I saw Marcia Clark on HLN shortly after the verdict in this case. She said that California passed a law similar to this shortly after the OJ trial and it was because of the OJ trial (similar to the outrage over this jury). She said it is for 90 days in California.

 

[sunsetbeach]

I don't think any jury anywhere should get paid except from the state for their service. (I'm talking about interviews, book deals etc ...)

Sure hope this law get's passed.

 

[Mosby]

MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
Press conference tomorrow my office announcing proposed new law so FL. jurors can't profit from serviceThx Rep. Scott Randolph #caseyanthony
3 hours ago


MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
It also makes it a felony to offer to pay for info from jurors or to approach for pay.This will make them responsible as well. #caseyanthony
3 hours ago

I was wondering if something like this could be done. If so, I'd like it in every state. If it can't be done totally, perhaps make it illegal for a specified period of time (maybe a year or two).

Thank you Mark Nejame!

 

[Mosby]

:great:

WOW ... I hope this becomes a "law" in Florida as well as EVERY STATE in the United States !

It's about time the "PROFIT MOTIVE" be taken completely out so jurors canNOT financially profit from jury duty. It is a "CIVIC DUTY" to serve on a Jury ... NOT a way to make a HUGE PROFIT or get your "15 minutes" ...

This will also eliminate "STEALTH JURORS" ...

:great:

BBM

Oh it so would. I suspect there was more than 1 on this jury!

 

[TxLady2]

hmmmm...not sure how I feel about this because in other cases I've been really curious how jurors felt and how they came to their decisions.

Would this be as popular if the jury decided to convict ICA? I did enjoy hearing from the Peterson jurors (that strawberry shortcake gal was rather interesting). They got together and wrote "We the Jury". It's currently unavailable at amazon.com, but you can still get it for the Kindle.

I don't know -- I just think this sounds like sour grapes (IMHO) and my opinion only. I don't want to cut out all future jurors, and if that means they sell an article to People magazine, who feels someone wants to read it, so be it.

Just ask yourself, would you be jumping on the bandwagon if these jurors found her guilty? Would you be against the jurors writing a book if they found her guilty?

Personally, I want future jurors to be able to talk about their experience - paid or not. No, I don't care about this jury or anything they have to say -- but I also don't want this important door into justice closed either. If jurors have to wait 6 months, memories fade, case interest fades, etc.

MOO thanks.

Mel

I agree. I read the book by the Scott P. jurors, and it was very interesting.

I think a lot of people are interested in what the jurors in this case have to say because we want to know why they came to that decision.

The media should be the ones to blame, they've hounded the jurors and anyone who had the least involvement in the case. They can claim they don't pay for interviews, but there has to be some incentive for them to go on t.v. And if the jurors themselves don't write the book, you can bet that someone will do it and make money.

Mr. Nejame needs to get off his little soapbox. People made all manner of fun of him when he represented the Anthonys, calling him a weasel and other derogatory names... now suddenly he's a hero because he represents Tim Miller who ALSO wants money from them. Will it ever end??

 

[Mosby]

Hold on.

They need to tighten this up. It says "for six months". Jeez - it could take 6 months to write a book or shop it around.

Or not - if you're Jennifer Ford and you are at Disney World less than 48 hours after being released from jury duty....grrrrrrrrrrrr. Did she call ABC from the bus on the way back to Pinellas County or what?

We need to demand that there be no profit - nor any agreements for future profit - or payment "in kind" - for at least 2 years.

By then, whatever case one might have served on would surely have waned in interest.

OK, just reading the rest of the posts. I TOTALLY AGREE.

 

[TxLady2]

Wanted to add: I'm against them looking to make money, if that's all they are after, but where do you draw the line? Is it any worse for them than it is all the other folks lining up with their hands out looking for money? How many books will be written about this, and how many movies made? SOMEONE will profit, probably a lot of folks, so I don't think one is entitled any more or less than another.

 

[Mandy113]

Haven't the chance to read the entire thread yet but ....

HURRAY! We sooooo need a law like this nationwide. A wonderful tribute to Caylee as well. I'd like to forget that trial, the DT and those jurors and focus on what we can do to make things better so Justice can not be undermined by anyone's personal motives for gain.

JMO

 

[Mustang Sally]

GREAT NEWS! Let's hope this becomes law asap!

Do not expect this to happen before 2012. Our lawmakers do not meet again until March of next year. Then the laws that they pass will not begin until July 1ST. BUT they can call a special session at any time. JUSTICE for Sweet ANGEL CAYLEE!

 

[Pollywog]

I hope this law passes. The Jury deserve nothing extra than what they get for serving. I saw #3 on the news last night and she has no clue just how stupid she sounds each time she opens her mouth.

 

[msinformed]

TennisLaw Diana Tennis
I want a law prohibiting any laws being proposed within 60 days of any not guilty murder verdict anywhere. And no baby names on laws.
21 minutes ago

And this ..........

ReTweeted by R Hornsby, originated from Diana Tennis

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
by TennisLaw
In bipartisan twist, FL legislators @RepRandolph @ScottPlakon propose law making it illegal to return verdict contrary to public opinion.
12 hours ago

 

[Marple]

TennisLaw Diana Tennis
I want a law prohibiting any laws being proposed within 60 days of any not guilty murder verdict anywhere. And no baby names on laws.21 minutes ago

And this ..........

ReTweeted by R Hornsby, originated from Diana Tennis

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
by TennisLaw
In bipartisan twist, FL legislators @RepRandolph @ScottPlakon propose law making it illegal to return verdict contrary to public opinion.
12 hours ago

Wow. Somebody needs to confiscate her tweeter. :crazy:

 

[magnolia]

I totally agree with this proposed new law. What took them so long?

 

[Talina]

TennisLaw Diana Tennis
I want a law prohibiting any laws being proposed within 60 days of any not guilty murder verdict anywhere. And no baby names on laws.
21 minutes ago

And this ..........

ReTweeted by R Hornsby, originated from Diana Tennis

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
by TennisLaw
In bipartisan twist, FL legislators @RepRandolph @ScottPlakon propose law making it illegal to return verdict contrary to public opinion.
12 hours ago

Not surprising at all to me that defense attorneys would be against this law. I am, however, a little perplexed as to why anyone would be opposed to a baby's name being associated with any legislation.

Some of these lawyer's tweets should really be kept to verbal conversations at their little social gatherings instead of massive public consumption via tweets. I, personally, think it makes them look very unprofessional. I know they are human just like the rest of us but I feel they should hold themselves out to be more professional than what I've seen from quite a few of them.

 

[DesSands]

I pray it goes into effect immediately. Then I think you may get the real story from jurors. And lastly, there will be a small justice for Caylee. because obvious these jurors didn't even look at her pictures. Didn't consider how 1 + 1 makes two. It was really a simple case when you took the GA, KH affair out of the equation. GA wasn't on trial, shouldn't have even been allowed in. :maddening: