Two Jackson jurors admit they are stupider than OJ jurors
 

WTF is this? Two of them are now claiming Jackson was really guilty of molestation, and are indignant because he got off... and they are mad, I tell you, they are stomping their feet and will tell you all about it in their upcoming books!

link

Someone explain this idiocy to me. If they were convinced he was guilty, um, why did they vote to aquit?

juror Eleanor Cook, with a book to sell, asked if other jurors would be angry with her for slamming them for aquitting Jackson, just like she did, responded

juror Ray Hultman, also "writing" a book, is indignant at the jury that let the pedophile go free. Nevermind he voted to aquit.

from my limited reading of news articles of the Jackson case, I would have voted to aquit. My anger is at these morons who did examine every piece of evidence, reach a conclusion, and for some bizarre reason, are indignant about the conclusion they themselves reached and voted for. It's scary that idiots such as these specimens are allowed to sit in judgment of another human.

Even more disgusting that they're trying to profit from it.

Because they are hoping that the general population (or at the least the population that they are aiming to sell this book to) doesn't know that said jurors themselves voted to acquit.

Yeah, I have no sympathy for them. If they are so indignant, they should have held out for what they believed was true instead of caving so they could get home to contact their agents faster.

You see... this is why juries should *never* be allowed to discuss a case.

I don't want to know this... I don't think anyone *really* wants to know this. Additionally, they should not be able to profit from being on a jury or get their 15 minutes of fame...

I agree totally, There just trying to make a quick buck and a claim to fame! I thought if you was on a jury that you where sworn to secrecy?

This is the case in the UK and Canada but apparently not so in the USA.

I wish I could find a simple way to amass a great deal of money.

Of course it's all bull but if people want to buy the books...

It does kinda bring up the fact that pay for being on a jury -- sucks. I can't imagine being on a hung jury for weeks at a time if I knew that my wages were cut in half and I wouldnt be able to make my house payment if I didn't get back to my REAL job. It might even be tempting to "go with the flow" even if I felt differently. :(

If they paid you enough to make the difference less, I think far less people would "cave." Then again, it would also suck to be so convinced but stuck on a jury of unconvincable people. ... ....

So...what've we got here? a couple of idiots who thought that by being chosen for a jury...more specificaly...this jury...they could be in a position to profit? As opposed to doing thier job?
This sickens me beyond belief.
Charlaton...I think that you're onto something there.

That is our justice department you get the "Jury of your peers."

I remember watching that big interview with Larry King, and it was this same old lady, who I just could tell was sniffing out the money. This is from the article on BBC News

"Ms Cook added: "I'm speaking out now because I believe it's never too late to tell the truth."

Wait a minute...Wait for it...The panel agrees, yes, it actually IS, lady.

Fucking geniuses, these people are.

"They are also working on a combined television movie about the case with producer Larry Garrison."

Well this here is just the icing on the cake. :lol:

Right i didnt know that, thanks for the info. It does seem strange that they are allowed to though!!

This kind of rethinking over a decision is common, and not just in jury deliberation; it's given the name "buyer's remorse" in the field of commerce.

The article hinted at what I thought was the case here--some thought Jackson was guilty but the weakness of the prosecution's case made it impossible for them to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense charged.

Still, it reads as though those two are disavowing any vote they cast, and that's just wrong--dumb, as many have pointed out. Dumber still will be any that plunk down money for the books.

However, the notion that this jury was dumber than the Simpson panel is hyperbole; they will remain the standard by which others are judged.

The whole jury system is pretty fucked up.

Personally, serving on a jury in a case that lasted more than a two weeks would be ruinous to me, and I know I'm not alone in this.

Lawyers don't want educated people as a rule, but people they can sway.

Then lets also take the idea of bias. If you want to find people who haven't heard of a high profile crime prior to being on the jury, you are not getting people who pay attention to the news. Hell, I couldn't give a rats ass about Jackson, and I wasn't even trying to listen to the news in general and I still knew the details of the case as presented by the media.

As such in most of these higher profile cases you end up with a bunch of idiots on the jury.

I don't think there is any question that it is only natural to have a change or heart or buyer's remorse... the question is, should a jury be allow to discuss this with the public at large, after the trial and in addition to this, should they be able to profit from it?

Can anyone give me a reason why either of these points should be allowed?

It seems to me it needlessly belittles the legal system and opens a big door for a mistrial or an appeal.

Two questions, two answers. First, YES, a jury should be allowed to discuss the case after it is over--not while ongoing, of course. Any other rule would be an unconstitutional and unwarranted infringement on free speech. Second, YES, but I qualify that by saying as long as the deliberations are not tainted by the profit motive, and that's frankly getting harder and harder to determine.


It may belittle the system, but as an attorney that has tried several dozen jury cases, I can tell you that I'm always interested in what went on in the jury room. I've learned quite a bit from hearing what jurors had to say about the cases I've been involved in--what I did right, what I could have done better, what I shouldn't have done at all, etc.

As for the mistrial or appeal, those are two different issues. A mistrial ends a proceeding before the conclusion, and juror misconduct can cause a mistrial. More often than not, if the misconduct is on the part of one juror that can be replaced with an alternate without causing a problem to the integrity of the trial, that is what is done.

The appeal is a trickier deal. In those cases, the proceeding is over and a verdict rendered. The party seeking to have a jury verdict overturned due to misconduct or mistake has a heavy burden to meet. There is a presumption that a verdict is arrived at fairly and in accordance with the law. Remorse after the fact is not grounds for a reversal (at least not in any state I know of); jurors often learn things after a trial that they didn't know during it, because of evidentary rulings, but upon getting the extra information, will say "that would have changed my mind." It takes a different kind of evidence, such as the seating of a disqualified juror or one that lied during the questioning, for a post-verdict motion to have any chance of success. The "appeal" actually starts with a motion for a new trial, and if denied by the trial court, then the appellate court is asked to review that decision.

Thank you for that... I didn't think mistrial was right after I posted but now I know for certain.

As for the limitation of Free Speech... what if it was just a publication ban? You can chat all you want with co-workers, family, strangers, etc. but the media is forbidden from publishing anything about it.

There just doesn't seem to be anything good that comes from the media splashing these people's mugs all over the place and publishing their second guesses.

Being able to profit from being on a jury just seems rather crazy to me and just doesn't seem right. I know if I was on a jury and some joker on the panel wrote about our deliberations I'd be pissed. It just seems to trivialize what is an important task (and yes I know Pauly Shore has already been there and done that... ;)).

Won't work in this country--the same First Amendment that gives freedom of speech also gives freedom of the press. Now, I recognize that "free speech" is not unlimited, but I don't see restricting jurors AFTER the trial is over from talking about it is ever going to pass constitutional muster in this country.

I agree with that, but the evil in stopping it seems worse.

I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about with Pauly Shore--and am glad of it (I assume he was on jury duty in a movie?). Yes, I'd not be happy if someone blabbed when we were done, especially if they were second-guessing our group decision.

I do wonder about being able to restrict business transactions resulting from jury service. That MIGHT be OK; after all, there are laws that prevent criminals from making any money from the media accounts (books, movies, interviews) of their misdeeds. I admit I'm not a constitutional scholar, so someone with more knowledge in this area would know better if such could be enforced.