Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
I don't think so. They obviously did not in this case.
Read the article. They did not allege a problem with the "jury instructions", but during deliberations (no transcript):
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4508579
The problem was that the jurors were under the impression that a hung jury was not an option. Gourley, a special education teacher, and Torres said that the foreman of the jury told them that Cardone would not accept a hung jury. Woods said she heard the same statement but could not remember which juror said it.
"Essentially, when they saw they could not convince the majority in favor of voting guilty, they conceded their votes, believing that they did not have the option to stick to their guns and prevent a unanimous verdict," Stillinger wrote in the motion.
Gourley said he thought the foreman was relating something he heard directly from the judge and when he found no mention on hung juries in the court's printed instructions, "I had no reason to doubt the foreman," he wrote.
After the trial, Gourley told the media that he felt pressured by other jurors who wanted to resume their normal lives after more than two weeks of trial. He also said he thought 10 years in prison was a grossly inappropriate punishment for the agents.
"Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different," he said.
The third juror, Woods, wrote, "I don't remember exactly what it was that made me change my vote to guilty on these charges, but I know I was very influenced by my belief, based on the other juror's statement, that we could not have a hung jury. I think I might not have changed my vote to guilty if I had known that was an option."
hi kettle!
I don't think you're weather wimps. LOL It's all about acclimation, ya know. We had -20 yesterday morning but it was only 3 below this morning. That's a warm trend for us. :)
Yes, our BP's have their hands full (understatement) and they have my deepest respect and support. They are not unlike our military men and women who serve to keep us safe. I also agree with you that the punishment they received seems to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.
I was reading comments on a law enforcement website the other day and was surprised to see how many of those in law enforcement felt that Ramos and Compean deserved to be brought up on charges and convicted. However, like myself, they didn't necessarily agree with the 10 and 11 year sentences.
Read the entire citation...it continues to describe circumstances wherein deadly force may be used..."he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
* * * * * * (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
LOL! :)
Note that the crimes in your section (b) are all crimes of violence.
Robbery is not. But of course you wouldn't get that either.
You know what that statement sounds like? That sounds like a juror with buyers remorse parroting what a lawyer is telling him.
Indeed, I think that this strategy is found in Blacks Law Dictionary under the heading "grasping at straws".
THANKS for doing the dirty work for me!!
I'm actuall well-aquainted with the rules of evidence. Is your point that if the jury knew the truth about the invading drug-smuggler they would be unlikely to believe his story? I agree, and that's one of the reasons this case is an absolute travesty.
"Stupid" n. One who disagrees with CofC.
robbery, n. The illegal taking of property from the person of another, or in the person's presence, by violence or intimidation; aggravated larceny.I maintain that you are in no position to be advising others on the law.
Maybe not, but it sue raises a question about the validity of the conviction and whether they were convicted on teh basis of the evidence or on the basis of fraud and intimidation.
Stupid: One who bows to peer pressure in a jury room when the lives of two men hang in the balance. Heck, one of them can't even recall when or why he changed his mind.
were you there to evaluate the pressures on these three jurors?
And I maintain that you do not know the difference between giving advice and stating facts. (btw...intimidation is not violence...maybe that's why your own citation mentions both)
There is no suggestion of "fraud" or "intimidation". There are only statements that they were "pressured" by the other jurors to convict. Hate to break it to you, but that happens every day in the jury room. That's why criminal defendants hire jury specialists to help pick juries.
I'm reading their statements.
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.