As much as I hate to admit it, the judge was right. Potential bias of a juror is a grave threat to the administration of justice, so the only reasonable response is (1) hold a new trial and (2) crucify the juror who lied.
If the perp had been executed long ago, it wouldn’t be like an innocent man was executed.
However, I understand the bias argument. While I do not like it, I also would seek a retrial and subsequent movement of the perp to the top of the list with a few others still awaiting “Justice”.
it did not affect the outcome and to throw out this conviction over this non issue is INSANE....
and its not like defense attorneys don't slither in their "type" of juror....
“As much as I hate to admit it, the judge was right. Potential bias of a juror is a grave threat to the administration of justice, so the only reasonable response is (1) hold a new trial and (2) crucify the juror who lied.”
This is just a technicality. I am so sick of seeing violent criminals released by liberal judges and liberal politicians.
Did he lie? He was asked if he had any ties to law enforcement.
A job app fills that? How? He said he had direct family in law enforcement, that’s not ties more than a job app?
So, anyone with a job app in for a law enforcement job is not able to differentiate between right and wrong, fact and fancy?
Pardon me for bucking the trend but I see this as another example of a judge that could benefit from a bit of a job change.
Horse manure.
Does the following make any sense to you?:
Transcripts show that when the trial judge asked the jury pool if any had law enforcement ties, Alston said his stepfather was an FBI agent and his father and uncle were retired agents.... "Mr. Alston understood that defense counsel would likely excuse him from the jury panel if he knew the full extent of his connections to the FBI," Judge Marshall wrote.
The guy had THREE close relatives who were current or former FBI agents, but leave it to a corrupt Clinton scumbag like Marshall to come up with the lame reasoning that because the juror failed to mention that he himself was SEEKING employment with the FBI (was he even asked what he speculated about his future?), well THAT would have sent up a red flag to the defense. Yeah. Sure, okay.
According to the trial transcripts, which Marshall cited in a 62-page order vacating Ramirez’s conviction, Alston claimed he was working as a civil attorney when he was questioned about his occupation, despite the fact that he had recently been laid off.
When Superior Court Judge Donald McCartin asked jurors about any ties to law enforcement, Alston told the judge that his father and uncle were retired FBI agents and that his stepfather was a current agent.
“Why aren’t you in the FBI?” the judge quipped. “You need not answer,” he quickly added.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-overturn9feb09,0,7165345.story