Courtroom Drama, Mistrial, in Terror Case
By bluegal Monday Oct 22, 2007 12:39pmReason why we aren't trying more terror cases? The jury comes back to courtroom with verdict of not guilty and three jurors allegedly jump up and say "that is not the verdict!"
AP: ...chaos broke out in the court in Texas when three jurors disputed some verdicts that had been announced.
Weirdness in the court. NBC:
"I thought they were not guilty across the board," said the juror, William Neal, a 33-year-old art director from Dallas. The case "was strung together with macaroni noodles. There was so little evidence."
Login or Register to post comments.
whaaat?
Oh yeah, the defendants weren't allowed to face their accuser. Weird concept of justice we have lately.
Sheesh, bush can't even get the verdict he wants from a Texas court.
Expect the next batch nominees for federal judgeships to be a bunch of kangaroos.
Either the 3 jurors were not paying attention at deliberations (which is quite possible), or this is just a bizarre case. I'm not sure how it demonstrates why there haven't been many terror trials post 9/11.
And Seele, there are no accusors. They are being prosecuted by a US Attorney. This is a victimless federal crime.
Justice is so messy.
Why don't we just abandon it like Republicans want us to do and get over it?
Visit News Corpse, the Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.
Runaway Jury
"Trials are too important to be decided by juries"
Weird is an understatement. I have served on Texas juries and before going back into
the court to announce the verdict, each of the jurors signed an affidavite/certificate
indicating how each voted, so how is it that when "polling" the jury by the judge, after
he/she read the verdict, can three challenge/change their vote? Makes no sense.
Damned librul activist commie-loving Texass juries!
/sarcasm
The whole case smelled worse to me than a cow with a bad case of the runs. Unidentified Isreali agents testifying? What ever happened to facing your accuser? They probably use such tactics in drug cases and undercover officers, but those officers are American.
So did shrub co. only have enough to pay off those three or what?
As usual, there's much more to the story. Not mentioned in the articles about the courtroom shenanigans is that Judith Miller - the one who went to jail over her involvement in the Plame leak - was also under investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald for allegedly warning the Holy Land Foundation of an impending raid, and that the warning probably afforded Holy Land personnel enough time to destroy crucial evidence. TPM has more: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/7/1148/62336
This case is ultimately about terror financing, and such cases always turn up unsettling revelations.
So, 3 out of 12 Jurors, huh? Yeah, that makes about 24%
so the gov couldnt really show a money trail going directly to terrorists
and the gov should know better than to have an israeli agent testify as your key witness
this is texas afterall....
**facepalm**
christ
Another juror said "they had an Israeli secret witness! WTF! Duh Bias!"
Republicans are stupid goobers.
Very, very weird that three jurors would disagree about the verdict.
Rollo Tomassi @ 12:
What's your point? Here in America ALL the people on the jury have to vote the same. At least that's the way it was before monkey boy took office.
Doggiebobo @ 7:
Polling the jury in open court is designed to ensure unanimity. Sometimes a juror will cast a vote in a jury room under duress. Polling gives him/her one last chance to speak up.
But this case is odd indeed. If three of the jurors simply didn't speak up at all, and then waited for the poll, one must really wonder whether they entered the process with their decisions already made.
However, I suppose we should take the time to note the importance of juries. Many often wonder, not unreasonably, why we have a jury system to begin with. After all, nothing predisposes a jury to be fair, and certainly nothing about a jury makes it better at determining truth from falsehood than a panel of judges or experts.
True enough, but the right to a jury trial is not a right of "due process." It's not about fact-finding or even fundamental fairness. No, the jury is a fundamental reservation of the judicial power for the people instead of the government! This is crucial, especially in these times!
Bluegal's "Reason why we aren’t trying more terror cases" isn't really about the oddly hung jury in this case; it's about the nature of juries in general. Juries are independent collections of "the people," empaneled once and only once for a particular trial. As such, they are not out to do the government's bidding, as a panel of judges could so easily be. Juries really do take their jobs seriously, and reserving the fact-finding power for "the people" allows juries to look at the government's case, and say, "You must be kidding."
Apparently, most of the jurors did just that, and their ruling would have stood, had some members of questionable motives not "changed" their minds.
Texas juror #1: Guilty? That wasn't the verdict I voted for.
Texas juror #2: Me neither. I voted that Dumbledore was straight.
Texas juror #3: ZZZzzzzzzzzz.......
To be fair, I was serving on a jury where we submitted the verdict and the clerk read the wrong one. We *all* objected, the judge asked us if it was correct, the clerk acknowledged her error ... and the District Attorney asked that the jury be polled.
Nor would I put it past some folks to be completely out to lunch during the process. We had one lady on the jury who saw the whole thing as a hassle, wanted to just vote and be done with it. (Unfortunately, because no one else wanted the job, I wound up being foreman and kept everyone discussing the case in regards to the charges and the judge's instructions.)
Rollo Tomassi @ 12:
A.K.A. a republican majority.
Karen @ 18:
Rollo Tomassi @ 12:
Thanks Karen....I appreciate your input. Had this been a case in say New Jersey and
a mobster was involved(like say what occurred in the "Sopranos"), I could/would have
better understood the three jurors changing their vote...Humor intended...
ckerst @ 17:
In criminal trials, there must be unanimity. Not so in civil trials.
And, in fact, it has not been held unconstitutional to tinker with unanimity in criminal trials. If a state wanted to, it could actually enter a 9-out-of-12 guilty verdict. (Nine has been the lowest courts have been willing to allow in theory.)
Personally, I disagree with such a policy, and am glad that we currently stick to unanimity in criminal trials.
Jury Nullification is great. Its the last chance for We the People to override despotic laws and overzealous prosecutors.
Thats why its been banned and hush-hushed in so many states.
Karen @ 18:
Thanks Karen, I appreciate your input. Had this case been not in Texas, but say in
New Jersey, and had involved a mobster(like in the "Sopranos), I could/would have better
understood the three jurors changing their votes....Humor intended...
Funny thing was jurors were at one time expected to be knowledgeable. They were first used when King William was putting together the Domesday book. Jurors were locals who knew who owned what, when and where.
Now they're expected to be a butcher, a baker and a dingbat.
I suspect that nine of the jurors entered the jury room with their minds made up and the other three likewise had their minds made up , and the "evidence was strung together with macaroni noodles". If you have ever been on jury duty you are
very likely to see weak evidence being presented by the government and the police.
If its a short trial it really doesn't matter and acquittal is the verdict. If its a long trial with a lot of wtnesses its really a pain, but the verdict is acquittal. Sometimes you wonder why the government even thought they had a case they could win.
Kangaroo courts in a banana republic...welcome to Amerika.
ysbaddaden @ 25:
Are you suggesting that we put the same restrictions on potential jurors that some repugs want to use to disallow certain classes of potential voters?
Not mentioned in the articles about the courtroom shenanigans is that Judith Miller - the one who went to jail over her involvement in the Plame leak - was also under investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald for allegedly warning the Holy Land Foundation of an impending raid, and that the warning probably afforded Holy Land personnel enough time to destroy crucial evidence.
BDM, you've got to be kidding....(say yes).
The jury reached it's decision on Friday, but since the judge was not there, the decision was not read until Monday. The three jurors had the weekend to reconsider their vote. Without the pressure from their fellow jurors, or pressure from their friends and loved ones, they changed some of their votes.
Nick @ 30:
Sorry, Nick. No joke.
Required @ 28:
That's Merka.
It sounds to me like bushco got to the three and had them do this so it would be a mistrial rather then a not-guilty verdict. By doing so the governement can retry them with a different jury?
junta justice on the march with a Walker, Texas Ranger potemkin front man
sounds like they knew they wouldn't get their way legitimately so they decided to take actions to initiate a mistrial to have the whole thing done again, hopefully in their favor this time. what a wonderful way for our court system to work..
Anyone else notice the strong connection to the Israeli government?
And they aren't pushing Bushist foreign policy? Uh huh...
Required @ 28:
America will never be a banana republic. Bananas can't be grown commercially in America.
We should have let the south seceed. The new Lousiana Govenor also shows us the same conclusion. My goodness gracious, what is this world coming too.
This is great, great news.
So wait, was the jury sequestered for this case? Three jurors changed their minds from not guilty to guilty over the weekend? This sounds unbelievably suspicious. Is anything being done?
Actually, macaroni noodles are fairly durable, even when cooked. Perhaps the juror meant linguini, or spaghettini. Ah, I fondly remember my days in Junior Law School, where we put together cases with macaroni noodles and then spray-painted them gold...
More background here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1094mcgonigle#a1094...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=judith_miller
All of these cases are jokes because the whole war on terror is a joke.
These people hate you, So what. We hate you, the Brits hate the Welsh and the French hate everyone... Remember?
From the review of the last several decades of history, False Flag operations, or operations that are put against their own country to mobilize the citizenry to react as appropriate has always been used. Especially with the US, Tonkin, USS Liberty, Northwoods etc...
It's not too hard to imagine that most of these attacks (like that perfect 'hit' on that golden mosque during that holy week last year) are preformed by covert individuals who wish to get the proper level of response from the Iraqis. The more turmoil and chaos, the longer the money keeps flowing.
Really lets not be silly. Money is money and billions are being lost in Iraq each week. Your industries are making money, and lots of people made money after (before and during) Sept 11th.
It's just too plainly out in the open to really deny asking about this trend of False Flags and the real goals and motivations of those in power.
Why does some "Israeli agent" have more credibility in court than any other person? I mean, how do we know this guy is telling the truth? It's not like he works for and is paid by the U.S. taxpayer. He's getting his instructions from a foreign government. What gives?
And just because Israel wants to keep the Palestinians starving, out in the cold doesn't mean they can pursue their own agendas in our courts. Way to turn U.S. courts into kangaroo courts. So much for credibility and justice.
Is there any left?
Login or Register to post comments.