Posted on 04/28/2006 6:05:04 AM PDT by SmithL
"I never once throughout the deliberation process and the reading of the verdict believed Hamid Hayat to be guilty," Arcelia Lopez, a 44-year-old school nurse from Sacramento, said in a 2,000-word affidavit filed to the U.S. District Court in Sacramento by the defense just after 9 p.m.
Among other accusations, Lopez said the jury's foreman, near the start of the two-month trial, "gestured as if he was tying a rope around his neck" and said, "Hang him." Lopez said that the gesture was repeated throughout the trial and that she believed it was a reference to Hayat.
Hayat's attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi, said Lopez's allegations should prompt U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell Jr. to grant the 23-year-old man a new trial. Hayat faces 30 to 39 years in prison at a July 14 sentencing.
Prosecutors could not be reached for comment at the late hour.
But one juror, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the accusations "a complete outrage" borne of "juror regret." The juror said Lopez changed her vote to guilty Monday, which at first made the juror uncomfortable.
"When she decided to change her vote, which was completely under her own will, I asked her flat-out to her face, in front of everybody, if she was changing her mind based on her own free will and the evidence presented (to) the jury," ... "She said yes."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Soooo...you are saying your are a gutless wimp and not responsible for your own actions?
You're calling SmithL a gutless wimp, or are you addressing the woman that is the subject of this article?
Do I smell a bribe? Or is it merely an attempt for to media attention?
I don't wanna be defending this woman - but I have served on a jury.
The case I was on was nowhere as big as the Hayat case. But the trial took about a week and then we deliberated for two and a half days.
In our jury were several loud and forceful individuals and they made it clear that they wanted to find the defendant guilty and get back to their jobs and personal lives. Maybe they were that confident in their beliefs - but I think the opposite. I think they wanted the trial to end ASAP!
There was a great deal of bickering in the jury room. Several jurors who voted Not Guilty folded really easily - but me and two other jurors held out until we were sure our reservations were answered.
The bottom line? I don't like it but in a jury room, I can easily see juror intimidation or pressure on those who aren't agreeing with the majority. I know for a fact that I told one of my fellow jurors to shut up and stop interrupting other jurors. I also told him to F*** off one day.
I have been on juries too. There always seems to be one person there who is in outer space. Instead of judging on the facts they rely on "Feelings".
I also have been on a jury and yes I acknowledge that some people were forcefull in making their arguments. Isn't this like any aspect of life? Except of course a jury must come to agreement so the arguments tend to be even more forceful. We did have one "hold out" who had a hard time keeping all the facts straight. Yeah, for those who had the facts clear in their mind I'm sure they wanted to get on with their lives and return to their jobs but no so much that they'd let someone they believed to be guilty walk. Therefore they had no alternative but to repeat the facts of the case over and over until the holdout either "went along" or was convinced. Was she "browbeat"? How can anyone make that judgement? If you are on a jury I do believe that you have to take some personal responsibility to not let yourself be browbeat into gowing along with something you don't believe. This juror could have continued to hold out if she honestly felt she was being "browbeat" and could even have complained to the judge - there are options to just "going along". When this doesn't happen, I would think someone would be embarassed to come forward and say that she let herself be used in such a manner.
The asylum that is the criminal justice system is best left to the lunatics and criminals in the black robes.
The rest of us simply carry.
The case is a bit too complex to explain here.
But needless to say, the debate cleared up some misconceptions that several of us had.
I was never brow-beaten into agreeing with the majority. The extended debate we had changed my mind.
I have been on juries too. There always seems to be one person there who is in outer space. Instead of judging on the facts they rely on "Feelings".
Trial by (those who select the) jury.
That certainly happens.
Exactly! I have sat on three juries. Part of the deliberation process is to reach a unanimous descision. How would you do that without using persuavive arguments? If this verdict gets overthrown because of this, then the jury system is no more.
Book or magazine deal?
Top seed in the American Idol competition...
...on al-Jazeera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.