Posted on 04/29/2010 12:07:13 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
KNOXVILLE - Federal court jurors reported today they have reached a verdict on three of four charges against former University of Tennessee student David C. Kernell, accused of illegally accessing the private e-mail account of 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
But they also reported they are deadlocked on the first count, a charge of identity theft.
Without asking what their verdict is on the other counts, U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips sent them back to the jury room to continue deliberating the first count.
In their written communication to the judge this afternoon, the jurors said: "Some of us feel not all jurors are following the jury instruction."
On its third morning of deliberations, the East Tennessee jury pondering charges against Kernell asked to review a federal law addressing identity theft. That's the count on which the jurors deadlocked.
After some discussion with lawyers, Phillips decided today to give them a copy of the law - with some sections blacked out that he said are irrelevant to the case.
Jurors then indicated they wished to go to lunch. The panel is expected to resume deliberations at 1 p.m. today.
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
If Kernell doesn’t get a hefty sentence it’ll be open season on politcal resources on the net.
Maybe he can hack into Hawaii’s birth records!!!!
Save the lecture - it was a joke.
I think you probably screwed up on the resisting arrest verdict. There is a very long history of cases that clearly state that resisting an unlawful arrest is a right.
Prosecutors often stack that charge on top of the others in order to increase their chances of getting at least one conviction.
So is the "gold fringe on the flag" thing.
It's fringe in more ways than one.
Some loon who decided to represent himself filed a pro se brief which made all those arguments about the "admiralty law versus common law" and even the gold fringe on the flag.
He was unable to cite a single case, statute, or actual historical authority for this theory.
But WE had to research the stupid argument in order to deal with it.
He was laughed out of court, but it cost my client a bunch of legal fees and the court and the lawyers a bunch of lost time that they could well have spent dealing with people's actual problems.
Stick to the prerogative of the jury to acquit on character or factual grounds. Because of the requirement of intent, there's always wiggle room. Don't get involved in all these elaborate conspiracy theories.
More importantly, if you should ever actually say that stuff in court, a cranky judge may find a reason to find you in contempt. Which is no fun.
You can find plenty of stuff here. The guy who wrote the juror’s guide is the same law professor who did the youtube video “Never talk to the cops”.
http://fija.org/document-library/jurors-guide-2/
...the East Tennessee jury pondering charges against Kernell asked to review a federal law addressing identity theft. That's the count on which the jurors deadlocked.A standard question for jury selection s/b "how often do you listen to NPR?" Anything other than "never" should mean disqualification.
BTW, what would you have to say about a judge who ordered a criminal defendant out of the courtroom under threat of arrest and never gave that criminal defendant the opportunity to present a defense or call witnesses.
The defendant wasn’t disruptive and did nothing to prevent the conduct of the trial. In this particular case, the defendant simply went home, all while being very reachable at any time on his cell phone which the court knew.
A week or so later, the defendant got a notice in the mail that he was convicted in a jury trial on the matter.
This is a true story based on personal knowledge.
What would you say about a situation like this? No need to suggest that there is something more the defendant did, because that was it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001028-—A000-.html
I’d have to say he’s guilty under 1028A(c)(4) — not sure about 1028A(c)(5).
I’m also wondering what exactly was blacked out — I really don’t see anything — my guess is possibly it was 1028A(b) — but that doesn’t relate to the definition of identity theft — rather what punishment he can receive if found guilty.
I probably never will sit on a jury.
If you lie, and it is discovered you will go to jail.
Lie about what? About what went on in the jury room? That's nobody's business. About not following the Jury instructions? Until I know what the jury instructions are going to be before I get seated, then what have I lied about? Usually the Judge will ask whether we will follow the jury instructions. My response is "Well that depends on what the instructions are.
So far I haven't served on a jury. But then there's always the chance that someone might forget to ask or someone might not think my answer is all that unusual.
Frankly I don't know how anyone can make an oath that they will follow the judge's instructions before the trial even begins. What if the instructions force you to make a decision against your conscience? Then what do you do? Acquit a guilty man or convict an innocent man simply because you were told to ignore certain evidence or follow some obscure rule of law that was not explained to you before you sat down on the jury?
Do you swear to follow instructions before you know what they are? Are you that naive or stupid? Or do you demand to know what the instructions are going to be before you swear an oath to follow them?
The case was reversed on THAT basis - not jury nullification.
There has to be overwhelming evidence of actual disruption before the defendant will even be shackled, let alone excluded from the courtroom.
There is, however, a downside risk. We had a judge, his court reporter, and a deputy shot and killed by a criminal defendant who escaped his escort, beat her severely, stole her gun, and ran amuck in the courtroom. But that was mostly due to the sorry state of security in Fulton County.
My question to you wasn’t related to jury nullification.
Also, what do you think of justices on a state supreme court reviewing a case when each on of them was on the witness list for the trial involved, but were not called because the defendant was ordered out of the courtroom so he could not present a defense? To make it worse, the case never even appeared on a public docket so there is no way the public could have known the case even existed.
On a lark, I actually went and READ Dougherty, which is the second case cited by this professor (the first case he cites is from 1794).
After reviewing the history of jury nullification, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit actually held the OPPOSITE of what he claims - jury nullification may theoretically exist, and was useful in the days of common law, limited case research ability, and colonial quarrels with Britain, but it is a dangerous principle, could cause anarchy, and will not be charged to the jury. So much for that, I didn't read any further because he's being too disingenuous for me.
This organization, the Fully Informed Jury Association, also appears on antiwar.com radio, and is looking for a community organizer for the Ft. Lauderdale area. That is, to say the least, odd.
I’m not a sexist by any stretch of the imagination, but there is virtually no woman who can physically control just about any man, never mind the fact that way too many custodial officers are grossly overweight and out of shape.
I thought that part was a bit odd myself.
Personally, I think I would not put my trust in a judicial panel who so readily dismissed the jury’s perrogative to be both the judge of both the facts and the law by claiming it is a dangerous principle. Even more dangerous is a judiciary that claims only a judge can rule on matters of law and that the jury must blindly accept what he says.
What facts are they going to testify to that could have any possible relevance at a trial? Witnesses testify to facts, not law. Unless they were factual witnesses to whatever crime this person was accused of, this is abuse of the subpoena power.
And a witness list has no force of law - just the subpoena. The judges would not be disqualified purely by reason of appearing on a witness list. Think a minute: any criminal defendant could disqualify all the judges in a circuit or on an appeals court from hearing his case -- just by typing their names on a sheet of paper. You don't think the defense lawyers would have a field day with that? Besides, you have to file a motion for disqualification (which is heard by a judge not involved) - there's a procedure you have to go through to disqualify, it's done all the time and judges ARE disqualified fairly frequently when there's an actual legal reason to do so.
But if the defendant was unable to call witnesses because he was excluded from the courtroom, he had a solid ground for appeal and reversal of whatever happened. But it sounds like he DIDN'T appeal the one thing that would have done him some good, or it was just lost in the noise.
If the case didn't appear on a docket, there are a couple of possibilities. One, the judge and his clerk are crooked. Could be, especially in some rural counties. Two, the defendant was appearing pro se and didn't realize that he was actually at a motions hearing or a calendar call, which don't appear on the trial docket, needless to say. Three, if you get a court reporter and have takedown, you HAVE a record, docket or no docket, crooked judge or no crooked judge.
It sounds to me like this was a pro se defendant who got in way over his head. Most judges exercise a great deal of patience with pro se litigants, but their patience is not unlimited. Most have very crowded dockets and not enough help, and tend to get annoyed with a pro se litigant who wastes everyone's time and doesn't know what he's doing. It's kind of like amateur home brain surgery to think that you can represent yourself when your life or freedom is at stake.
Needless to say, there are several multi-million dollar lawsuits against the county going forward.
But the point is, sometimes if somebody appears to be a bit off kilter, and the judge doesn't at least shackle him, it can be dangerous.
A juror’s job and sworn obligation is to decide innocence or guilt, nothing more.
Then you need to become familiar with the following, I would say ... :-)
Conservatives know that being on a jury involves more than what you just said.
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.