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....
I am not blaming the lawyers in this one; both sides always try to slip in “their” type of juror. In this case the blame falls squarely on the juror in question because he lied. I do wonder, though, why he wasn’t charged with perjury.
Now I am just a layman but without seeing what statements the juror said when being interviewed the impression that comes across from this ruling is that potential law enforcement members are not welcome on a jury. I understand possible loyalty issues but the juror admitted a history of FBI employment at the time while he himself was not. Now again without knowing if there is an unquestionable lie involved, this story doesn't indicate the rules but obviously jurors can be excused by defense lawyers. What I also don't see is what I have seen before - some breach of the law but not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Was this juror a foreman? If he was is it known if he was the catalyst to change a single, or several, juror(s) leaning towards not guilty. Is there any indication of improper conduct during the trial?
What I really dislike about an article like this is the lack of info to really let the public decide. With the limited info presented, as of now I feel the judge has reacted overzealously and nullified the millions of dollars surely spent convicting and defending that conviction on appeal.