SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[HarleyP]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Sounds like my husband I tell my HD somethings, but not every intimate detail of my life.

I'm just hoping this Jennifer person is one of those busy-bodies that thrives on attention and tries to insert herself into every high-drama situation going on in her life. We all know people like that, don't we?! I have one friend who all she does ....

Just like telling us about your friend (no disrespect!) it is human nature. I do it too. More than likely, that is the case here, but at what price? People know you can jokingly say to your BFF "I'll kill you if..." but you don't say that about the POTUS or find yourself in big dog do do!

People need to realize that seemingly innocent comments about knowing a juror, or knowing someone that knows a juror or that juror said ya da ya da while the trial is in progess isn't something to joke about/talk about post about...because just like comments about killing the POTUS, there are consequences. This case is high profile enough where IMO, a tough lesson would go a long way.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's not just about during the deliberations. Jurors were told no communicating about the case at all, to anyone, at any time, the entire time they were seated. They were not to discuss the case, listen to other people discuss the case, post or read social media or articles about the case, etc. Not just during court hours but 24x7. If they can't or won't follow those rules and they have no self-discipline, they'll possibly earn a contempt charge. The system can only work if people follow the rules.

If I were one of the other 11 jurors I'd be livid if someone didn't follow the judge's orders and caused my time sitting there and listening to the case and then deliberating to be a waste. Who wants their 4+ weeks to be for nothing?

 

[HarleyP]

it is not within the purview of the court to punish the actions of the other two, as morally wrong as it may have been.

I am not about to have a debate about what the court can or cannot do as I admit, I do not have the definative answer. I certainly think Judge Stephans has the latitude to bring them into court and have them explain themselves...at the very least.

 

[HarleyP]

It's not just about during the deliberations. Jurors were told no communicating about the case at all, to anyone, at any time, the entire time they were seated. They were not to discuss the case, listen to other people discuss the case, post or read social media or articles about the case, etc. Not just during court hours but 24x7. If they can't or won't follow those rules and they have no self-discipline, they'll possibly earn a contempt charge. The system can only work if people follow the rules.

If I were one of the other 11 jurors I'd be livid if someone didn't follow the judge's orders and caused my time sitting there and listening to the case and then deliberating to be a waste. Who wants their 4+ weeks to be for nothing?

Amen!

 

[Madeleine74]

I am not about to have a debate about what the court can or cannot do as I admit, I do not have the definative answer. I certainly think Judge Stephans has the latitude to bring them into court and have them explain themselves...at the very least.

They can be questioned and asked to aid/assist in an investigation of the possible misconduct, but no, the hairdresser and friend or whoever will not face any charge because they haven't broken any law! It is not illegal to have someone gossip to you. It is not illegal to post gossip on a social media site. The only one who faces a legal charge would be the juror for their own misconduct if it is determined they did, in fact, break one of the court rules.

There are actual lawyers here and they are telling you the same thing.

 

[Elisaa444]

Ditto. I'm not worried either. It's nothing, IMO.

I'm *SO* not worried. It's going to take a lot more than an alleged juror misconduct scandal or perhaps just a bored, attention starved troll to get JY another chance at a retrial. Come on. 12 of JY's peers all told the Judge they agree with the murder1 verdict individually and unanimously. The Judge said the court accepts the verdict and agrees with it based on the evidence submitted. I hope JY's attorneys and his "fans" don't pump him up with a sense of false hope that anything will ever come of it to benefit himself. IMO, I see a whole lot of nothing. Although, this at least for a while, will give the JY "was falsely convicted" fan base something to base their case on. Hey, we all gotta fight for something.

MOO. Moo. moo.

 

[~n/t~]

It's not just about during the deliberations. Jurors were told no communicating about the case at all, to anyone, at any time, the entire time they were seated. They were not to discuss the case, listen to other people discuss the case, post or read social media or articles about the case, etc. Not just during court hours but 24x7. If they can't or won't follow those rules and they have no self-discipline, they'll possibly earn a contempt charge. The system can only work if people follow the rules.

If I were one of the other 11 jurors I'd be livid if someone didn't follow the judge's orders and caused my time sitting there and listening to the case and then deliberating to be a waste. Who wants their 4+ weeks to be for nothing?

I agree but the posts being investigated have to do with deliberations. Not sure what actions will be taken, if any, if the allegations turn out to be false and the jurors did indeed have their cellphones off during deliberations? Do they investigate further or just leave it at that?

 

[Madeleine74]

If the allegations are false and the SBI determines that then no harm, no foul. They (the court/SBI) can only investigate what is brought to their attention. They're not going to start some big investigation into the life of every juror outside the scope of this allegation.

 

[HarleyP]

Isn't it all a moot point really? The jurors CELL PHONES WERE TURNED OFF AND PUT AWAY during deliberations. NO TEXT originated from the jury. ~moo

It is NOT a moot point. True, because the jury supposedly didn't have access to phones "while in court" (there was the weekend), it is more likely than not Jennifer R<modsnip> posted total carp but once again a jury verdict is 'suspect' Dare I say the Casey Anthony jury was accused of shirking their duties based on...well...nothing but disappointment in the verdict.

It is clear from her other posts, this Jennifer person did not believe Jason Young was guilty which in the eyes of some, makes her post even more suspect (me included) but if we can't trust in a jury verdict, we are in a bad bad place.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

So the SBI can obtain the phone and text messages from all of the jurors' phones, right? Either voluntarily or involuntarily. And that will give them the answer.

 

[gngr~snap]

It is NOT a moot point. True, because the jury supposedly didn't have access to phones "while in court" (there was the weekend), it is more likely than not Jennifer R<modsnip>posted total carp but once again a jury verdict is 'suspect' Dare I say the Casey Anthony jury was accused of shirking their duties based on...well...nothing but disappointment in the verdict.

It is clear from her other posts, this Jennifer person did not believe Jason Young was guilty which in the eyes of some, makes her post even more suspect (me included) but if we can't trust in a jury verdict, we are in a bad bad place.

I agree it should be investigated fully to make 100% certain. But the statement about a text and the info given in said text was indeed false.
By moot I meant I don't think there is much to worry about based on what we have heard.
That may very well change, but I believe these jurors took this decision very seriously and followed orders.
~moo

 

[passionflower]

To our legal WS.........
what does this all mean as far as JY ???
another trial? mistrial?
lighter sentence?
with all the crazy world and laws for the criminal's rights........
I am sick!

 

[Wolfpack]

To our legal WS.........
what does this all mean as far as JY ???
another trial? mistrial?
lighter sentence?
with all the crazy world and laws for the criminal's rights........
I am sick!

If, and it's a HUGE if, the allegations are true, the defense can move for a mistrial. The Judge's only options are granting the mistrial if the conduct is deemed severe enough, or denying the mistrial. Either scenario is tricky for him, because it is possible it will leave room for an appeal on either side.

But, those are the only options, mistrial, or not. There won't be an in between.

 

[krkrjx]

Oh noooooooooooooo!

You know if it comes out he talked about the case the entire time the DT is going to use that on appeal.:banghead:

I am sickened to hear this and if the Judge ordered the SBI to investigate it must be pretty serious and he must have a good faith basis for doing so. (GROAN!)

IMO

I do not think the judge requesting an investigation into the matter necessarily means he believes it has merit. IMO, the judge is requesting the matter be investigated because that is protocol whenever something like this is brought to his attention.

 

[Luna24]

Looking at that JR's facebook wall, I'm not very worried...she seems interested enough in many trials and news events...and posts about them. Seems a little odd - I can see posting in a forum like this or whatnot but her facebook page?

I just have a gut feeling that she wanted to insert herself here...and the "hairdresser" is an easy target...my sister worked as an aesthetician for years and in a salon and everyone knows a lot of gossip goes on in salons...easy for her to point her finger that way....let's see how it pans out...

 

[Amster]

Any big fan of the defendant in any case can do this.....cause havoc with the verdict in hopes their favorite inmate will get a new trial.

 

[Amster]

Looking at that JR's facebook wall, I'm not very worried...she seems interested enough in many trials and news events...and posts about them. Seems a little odd - I can see posting in a forum like this or whatnot but her facebook page?

I just have a gut feeling that she wanted to insert herself here...and the "hairdresser" is an easy target...my sister worked as an aesthetician
for years and in a salon and everyone knows a lot of gossip goes on in salons...easy for her to point her finger that way....let's see how it pans out...

So, does the SBI track her down....if this person is a "her"....to get the name of the hairdresser, etc., etc. For a person craving attention, this has got to be so exciting! :banghead:

 

[Wolfpack]

If the allegations of juror misconduct prove true, they would also have to be shown to have had an impact on deliberations to affect the verdict, said Assistant District Attorney Howard Cummings.

"I still have all the faith in the jury," he said, characterizing the claims as unsubstantiated and "just junk."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/06/justi...paign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)

 

[otto]

HA! the vote was NEVER 9-3!

Interesting that the hairdresser friend knew it was 5 Guilty at the start and that's confirmed by others on the jury. The hairdresser friend says it changed to 9 guilty. Perhaps that reflects the second vote in the jury room.

"My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty!" according to one message posted around noon Monday."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10820046/

"Votes initially: 4 men G 1 women G : NG 1 women. Rest were undecided."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164955&page=9

 

[Grammy Jean]

Interesting that the hairdresser friend knew it was 5 Guilty at the start and that's confirmed by others on the jury. The hairdresser friend says it changed to 9 guilty. Perhaps that reflects the second vote in the jury room.

"My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty!" according to one message posted around noon Monday."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10820046/

"Votes initially: 4 men G 1 women G : NG 1 women. Rest were undecided."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164955&page=9

They were NEVER deadlocked and it was never 3NG!