Judge: Tyco jury can continue deliberations [Juror flashed "ok" sign to defense; no mistrial]

AP/MSNBC ^ | March 29, 2004 | AP

[In_25_words_or_less]

NEW YORK - A judge ordered more deliberations Monday in the trial of two former Tyco executives, rejecting a defense mistrial motion contending that one juror apparently holding out for acquittal had been pressured by intense media coverage.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus said he spoke privately with the juror, who was identified by name on the cover of a tabloid newspaper over the weekend and depicted making an “OK” hand signal to the defense.

He said she told him “that nothing that has happened will from her point of view prevent her from deliberating in good conscience with the other jurors.” He also said, without explaining, that the juror “volunteered more than was asked.”

SNIP . . .

In requesting the mistrial, defense lawyer Stephen Kaufman showed the judge the front page of Saturday’s edition of the New York Post, which bore a sketch of the juror and called her “Ms. Trial” in large type. The paper identified her by name and called her a “paranoid socialite” and “batty blueblood.” The Wall Street Journal also identified her by name.

[Poohbah]

This smells fishy.

[oceanview]

just accept the hung jury and get the retrial going. 11 jurors are voting for conviction, they can get a new jury without this kook woman the next time around, and get these guys put away.

[BenLurkin]

Bizarre.

[martin_fierro]

Cavuto reported last Friday that this juror is also a lawyer.

[jojodamofo]

I say toss the whole thing. This widespread attack on "corporate crime" is nothing more than an attack on capitalism, IMO.

[SedVictaCatoni]

I'm really surprised that the prosecutor didn't get this woman removed from the jury panel during voir dire. Usually lawyers, especially criminal defense attorneys, are yanked, or even removed for cause by the judge!

[smiley]

Bet juror number 4 is a lib....:)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It's okay.

We got Martha for lying about a perfectly legal trade.

Nobody cares about the real crooks.

[In_25_words_or_less]

This smells fishy.

I certainly don't understand it. Maybe the judge has a good reason.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I say toss the whole thing. This widespread attack on "corporate crime" is nothing more than an attack on capitalism, IMO.

Dennis is a real crook.

Martha is just easy for the class-warfare-mongers to hate.

[oceanview]

nonsense. these guy are crooks, and so are many others in the executive suites of corporate america. regular workers are seeing their pension funds looted, having their health benefits reduced, while these guys walk off with millions.

[kennedy]

It was a long damn trial. Most judges will make a jury fight it out for several days before throwing in the towel and starting over, particularly in a case that has already taken up this much court time.

[oceanview]

this juror sounds like a mental case, you can't expect to reason with someone like that. why they have no alternates they could swap in is beyond me.

[kennedy]

From the article:

“It seems to me that it would be inappropriate to declare a mistrial when all 12 jurors, who have devoted six months of their lives to this trial, are prepared to continue,” said [Judge] Obus.

When the jurors returned to the courtroom, he told them to let him know “if at any time any of you feel that the deliberations cannot continue properly for whatever reason.”

[blau993]

why they have no alternates they could swap in is beyond me.

Alternates are chosen to ensure that there will be 12 jurors available to deliberate, even if jurors drop out for some reason during the trial. Alternates are usually dismissed at the time the jury begins to deliberate (as was done in this case). There is no procedure in any court for "replacing" a juror during deliberations. Indeed, to do so would bastardize the entire jury system. The lone holdout is a venerable tradition in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. You don't fire a juror merely for sticking to his or her beliefs, however irrational you might think they are.

[bondjamesbond]

Homer: So “if” we don't all vote the same way, we'll be “deadlocked” and have to be “sequestered” in... the Springfield Palace Hotel! Where we'll get... a free room, free food, free swimming pool, free HBO—oh, Free Willy!

[TXBSAFH]

I smell a small furry animal with a liking for cheese.

[shield]

Wonder what happened over the weekend to the jurors?

[ahayes]

why they have no alternates they could swap in is beyond me.

That would entirely invalidate the point of a trial by jury, which is to ensure a impartial verdict. If there's a disagreement about the verdict it should be hammered out within the jury. You can't just dismiss an annoying juror after deliberations have started, although no doubt Al Gore would love that tactic ("We'll swap in jurors until we get the result we want!")

If we allowed dismissing jurors just because the judge didn't like their opinion, next we'd go on to a system like Canada and Australia have, where the state gets to appeal the case if they don't like the verdict. If you were put on trial in Canada and declared not guilty, the state could appeal the case and try you in higher and higher courts until either they ran out of options or got you found guilty.