JUROR SWILLING VODKA - VERDICT OK

Recently saw a blurb on the CNN.com news page that caught my eye. Seems a New York firefighter was on trial for theft of some 911 items from the WTC site. His case was tried to a jury and he was convicted. The defendant, Samuel Brandon, and his lawyer, Ronald Kliegerman, ran into a juror outside the courthouse after the verdict. The juror, Mr. John Anastas, described in the article as "visibly drunk" approached the defendant and offered to grab a beer with him. You know, one of those, "Hey, no hard feelings that I just convicted you of a crime" beers.

In any event, Kliegerman said he could smell booze on the juror. Somehow, the men found out that Anastas had apparently been drinking vodka and water from his water bottle during deliberations. Article didn't say how long deliberations were, but they were apparently long enough for Anastas.

Not suprisingly, Kliegerman immediately sought to have the verdict tossed on the grounds that one of six jurors wasn't as ah, focused as he should have been. Judge Ellen Coin however, refused to toss the verdict. She ruled that Anastas' conduct didn't amount to legal misconduct.
Although I haven't seen the judge's opinion, there is apparently caselaw that stands for the proposition that incoherent jurors aren't necessarily bad jurors. The article referred to a 1987 United States Supreme Court opinion where two Florida men were convicted of some sort of fraud charges, and after the verdict, defense counsel learned that several jurors were incoherent during the trial. There was evidence that some of the jurors were "giggly" and often slept through evidence. The Supreme Court however apparently held[don't have opinion so I am relying on the accuracy of CNN] that under the Federal Rules of Evidence, juror testimony won't impeach a verdict unless there was an outside influence on the jury. And the Supreme Court allegedly held that in the Florida case, juror intoxication wasn't enough of an outside influence to chuck the verdict. Huh?

You just gotta ask, what do you need to show outside influence? How about 12 packs of Bud in the jury box - that sufficent? Large plumes of smoke from the jury room coupled with giggling and Twinkie wrappers? I realize judges don't want to mess with jury verdicts, but give me a break. In subsequent hearings, several jurors testified that during deliberations Anastas was "annoying" and "unfocused". Yeah - cause he was shit-faced.

And, interestingly, the article pointed out that the ruling "...renewed the controversy surrounding drunk jurors". What controversy would that be? Is there a large group of lawyers/judges fighting to place more drunks on juries? There is no controversy. It's simple. Drunk people don't belong on juries. Cases like this just give those folks who want to eliminate jury trials altogether more ammo. Judge Coin should have thrown the verdict out and given this guy another trial with sober jurors.

CASES OF INTEREST ETC.

Have seen some interesting cases reported in the news last couple of weeks...

In late September, a Belleville, Illinois jury ordered that a father pay his daughter $6 million dollars for molesting her 16 years ago, when she was 6 years of age. The defendant filed for bankruptcy just a week before the verdict, but counsel for his daughter indicated that the bankruptcy filing won't protect him from paying at least a part of the verdict. Of particular note, the jury apparently saw a videotape of 6 year old plaintiff Lindsey Smith describing the abuse to a nurse at a sexual assault unit at a local hospital. The defendant had been arrested in 1988 when his then wife caught him in a locked bedroom with Lindsey. He pled guilty to a reduced charge in 1989 and was sentenced to 60 days of jail on nights and weekends. At the trial the defendant did admit making his daughter perform certain sexual acts on one occasion. Lindsey testified to a series of incidents.

In addition, in early October, a West Virginia jury found that a gun maker was not liable for the shooting of two police officers by a felon. Two New Jersey officers had sued Sturm, Ruger & Co. alleging the maker should pay damages because one of their guns had been used to shoot them. The article implied that the injury to the officers wasn't foreseeable. The pawn shop that had sold the guns did pay the officers 1 million. A clerk at the shop had sold the guns(and 11 others)to a Tammi Songer who purchased the guns for James Gray, a felon who could not legally buy the guns. Apparently Gray had picked out the guns and carried them out the door - Songer simply paid for them. Gray later sold one of the guns to a three time felon, Shuntez Everett, who shot the officers and was killed in the same gun fight. Both Songer and Gray spent time in prison for their role in the purchase.

"HARD WORK"

In the words of George W. this blogging stuff can be hard work. Having to post blogs on a regular basis is hard work. Haven't posted in over a month. And a whole lot of stuff to comment on...

Can't help myself on the presidential race. Coming down to the wire and both sides agree it is a horse race. Some commentators even suggesting now that Bush could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college...I'm sure that the Right Wing would do the honorable thing, concede defeat and move on. Not bloody likely. And I read today that Kerry has got teams of lawyers with private jets in every swing state to help with recounts. Wonder if the Republicans will have any hesitation to file them damn lawsuits if they think they can steal an election. Doubt it.

On a completely unrelated note heard Sam Donaldson slap Hannity around tonight on Hannity's radio show. It was wonderful. In light of Donaldson's reputation, Hannity couldn't shout him down or cut him off, which he typically does to those who dare disagree. You the man Sam.

And lots going on in the legal world as well...

The Peterson trial set to wrap up in a week or so. Most pundits saying that the defendant will not testify. This is a tough one to call. Prosectution did not do do a particularly compelling job and switching prosecutors in the middle of a murder trial is unusual to say the least. And Geragos has done a good job poking holes in their case. He only needs to hang up one juror.
By the way, what the hell does Gloria Allred do for a living anyway?

And how about our man O'Reilly? Alleged phone sex? From the very pinnacle of moral authority! His extortion lawsuit was another ill-advised, poorly thought out legal strategy. Remember he was the driving force behind that stupid lawsuit against Franken that only allowed Franken to make more money. Now the question is - does the alleged victim have tapes? And if so, were they illegally made? O'Reilly's attorneys are in Court next week(I think) seeking a turnover of any tapes.

More to come in the days ahead...