Posted on 02/08/2007 10:21:37 AM PST by calcowgirl
Three jurors have apparently told reporters that the foreman "told them their verdicts had to be unamimous," and that they were "not allowed to be a hung jury."
Now IF this report is accurate, etc. etc. BTW, a local, highly experienced attorney tells us that scuttlebutt has it that the defense team was "out-lawyered" by the prosecution.
For example, in regard to the infamous, so-called "Subsequent Arrest" of the informant after he received immunity: it "officially" may have never happened. I.E., he was taken into custody, and released; never actually "arrested, or booked," so the prosecution felt they were technically correct in not disclosing this to the defense, and they followed up by successfully obtaining a gag order and the sealing of records.
Your tax dollars at work.
Twisting in the wind, hanging from their own ptard, the Bush administration withered and died.
Long live global tyranny.
Those people that lied should be fired immediately for lying to Congress
Also .... is this the dude that is a childhood friend of the drug muggler??
But that finding directly contradicts a Department of Homeland Security memo written March 12, 2005 - less than a month after the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting - by Christopher Sanchez, the original investigating officer for the Homeland Security Inspector General's Office.
Well, verdicts do have to be unanimous, and judges to frown on 'hung juries', which I guess could be interpreted by some to be pushing them, but usually all communication by the judge to the jury is vetted past all the lawyers first.
I'm not sure what the rules are about the way foreman manipulate jurors. IN the one case I was a juror, the foreman did a LOT of manipulation, and it took a lot of effort to overcome his bias. I would imagine that a strong person on a jury could sway people pretty easily.
But post-case recantations of jurors are discounted, because once they are tainted with media coverage and possibly inquiries from the defendant lawyers or supports of the defendant, you can't be certain they are still speaking strictly based on the evidence in the case.
Some jurors might be swayed by the absurd sentences for example to be fighting the charge that caused the long sentence (NONE of the reports I've seen about the jurors says whether they were protesting ALL the guilty verdicts, or just one, or a couple -- I'm not saying there isn't a report that does state that, just I haven't seen it).
Or they could actually be threatened, or bribed, to change their position. Or maybe they read other evidence or conjecture that wasn't allowed to be presented because of lack of foundation or because the judge ruled it was not germane. Those would be things to include in the appeal, which I presume is slowly winding it's way up through the system -- or maybe they are focusing on the media blitz.
If you had another 3 jurors who insisted on guilt but corroborated the pressure, that would be the first step to getting the "juror" issue on the front burner. I haven't seen any other jurors agreeing that there was such pressure, but again maybe there was a report and we didn't see it.
HM was sunk when she couldn't answer legitimate questions. If the reactionaries hadn't blasted her for weeks for random quotes out of context from years earlier, and screamed for senators to deny her a vote based on her lack of a known position on Roe V. Wade, she would have been rejected by the democrats and republicans based on the FACTS, and America wouldn't have gotten the idea that conservatives were simply looking for ideologues.
There was nothing wrong with those arguing against her because of the lack of a paper trail or familiarity with constitutional issues. But there was a lot of other things thrown out their in an attempt to sway the politics without regard to the facts.
It could be the same here. The facts could end up exonerating these two men, but right now it's mostly shrill rhetoric about open borders, pro-drug prosecuters, a corrupt attorney general, and a president who should be impeached. Hardly a conservative way of examining the facts and reaching a rational judgment.
Heard of any nuclear bombs going off at a port recently?
Where was the conservative examination of the facts, and final judgement BEFORE the arrest of these Border Patrol Agents?
'Guest workers' my azzz...
I've got that image up on my images page. I must have used it in one of my anti-illegal blog diatribes.
Apparently, judge's instructions were fine. The jurors reportedly say they were pressured by the foreman, who wouldn't let them hang and was intimidating. Some question about his connections as well.
Given the controversy now swirling around this case, and the inevitability of appeal, I am wondering why the two BP agents aren't (weren't) released on bail pending appeal.
Chris Sanchez was the DHS-OIG investigator in charge of the case.
Rene Sanchez is the BP Agent from Arizona who was the friend of the smuggler.
Both demonstrated questionable behavior throughout this case, IMO.
Rene Sanchez's mother knew the mother of the smuggler.
Do you know if the jurors reported to the judge that they were deadlocked?
The prosecutor did not foresee the firestorm this case would create. Had these two BP men been traditional criminals, the (perhaps overly) slick lawyering used to nail them would probably have been applauded by the very same people now in various stages of outrage (including me.)
Unfortunately, now Sutton is actually benefitting from the controversy and confusion swirling around the case! He, and the other agencies caught off base by the popular reaction, are rather cagily trying to control and direct the release of information, and disinformation, as much as they can. Evidently, they may have gone too far with it, though, by misdirecting congress.
That, and the original decision to prosecute, of course, are the most disturbing aspects of the whole tawdry affair. Guilty or innocent, these BP Agents should be free pending appeal, which I believe to be a necessary first step in reaching a workable deal.
Maybe the 5th Circuit will see it that way, as erton suggests. However, this ain't no 9th circuit... i.e. they are usually, I hear tell, rather pro-prosecutor.
I'm surprised the are not out pending appeal, but I don't know how often people are out pending appeal.
I remember Martha Stewart was not out while pending appeal, at the time I think the talking heads said the appeal had little chance so she figured it was better to get the sentence over with than wait a year under a cloud and then have to go to jail.
Well the district court judge isn't cutting Ramos any slack. He filed a pauper motion 3 weeks ago, basically saying that he was broke, his prior attorney's were continuing on a pro-bono basis, and that he didn't even have the funds to pay for the transcript to support an appeal.
Judge Cardone slapped him down and denied it on Wednesday.
Wow, did he do anything to PO the judge other than this campaign for the pardon by his supporters. Maybe the judge thinks he has access to funds through his supporters. Have they started a legal defense fund? It may be time to start if one hasn't started yet. I have mentioned this on prior threads.
Rumor has it, like everything else in this damned case, that the foreman would not permit them to report out. If true, could that be significant at this juncture?
IMHO, probably.
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.