Posted on 03/10/2011 1:30:35 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
Attorneys for Ray Lemes, whose murder trial was derailed when a member of his jury was found to have conducted outside legal research, said Thursday the errant juror should be held accountable — with a fine or a jail term, if necessary.
Lemes had been on trial for five days for the 2007 shooting death of a college student in the street in front of his home, and the jury had been deliberating for almost seven hours when the foreman sent a note to state District Judge Lori Valenzuela stating that one member had independently looked up the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter.
Judges always warn jurors before and during trials that outside research is prohibited. Defense attorney Michael Sawyer asked for a mistrial and Valenzuela granted it. Sawyer said the unidentified juror probably meant well and said he didn't expect that person to face any consequences.
But on Thursday, a starkly different tone emerged in a motion for contempt of court filed by his co-counsel and brother, Joe James Sawyer.
“To allow this juror to ... violate the court's orders and instruction without punishment will send a message to every juror that they can improperly influence or prevent judicial process and that there are no consequences to said activity,” the filing states. “It is the duty of every citizen chosen to participate as a juror to do so honestly and within the law.”
The Sawyers asked that an arrest warrant or summons be issued for the juror to appear at a contempt of court hearing. The attorneys plan to ask that the juror be sent to jail or fined $25,000 to help defray Lemes' costs at the eventual murder retrial that both they and prosecutors expect.
At a minimum, the Sawyers asked for the juror's name “so that we may obtain service of process against them for the damages inflicted.”
Valenzuela has not yet ruled on the motion or announced whether she will entertain a hearing on the matter.
Prosecutors also expressed anger and frustration Wednesday after the mistrial was declared.
“Each side put their heart and soul into this case,” said Assistant District Attorney David Lunan. “For (a juror) to disobey the court is a disservice to all of us.”
The Sawyers asked that an arrest warrant or summons be issued for the juror to appear at a contempt of court hearing. The attorneys plan to ask that the juror be sent to jail or fined $25,000 to help defray Lemes' costs at the eventual murder retrial that both they and prosecutors expect.
You know... I can see this. Why should Lemes and his attorney have to be out any more money for defense. Just because of an idiot juror.
Because God forbid that the juror do some intelligent research instead of taking the word of the Almighty Divine Judge like it was brought down from Mount Sinai?
}:-)4
The REAL “justice” system. Both sides want the jurors to be mindless sheeple.
Can they demonstrate or prove intent? Do they know for certain that the juror was going to use the legal definition? How are they able to assess the purpose the juror had in mind? Can they even assert, beyond reasonable doubt, that the juror’s purpose, intent or action was related to this case?
Lemes is being tried in a Kangaroo Court anyway. God only knows why the DA is pursuing this case.
Lemes is protected under the Castle Doctrine. He shot a man breaking into his home. Or did he?
See more.....
Lemes, 51, left the courthouse immediately after the ruling with an entourage of supporters. The Northwest Side resident has been under legal scrutiny since August 2007, when he ran outside his home naked with a laser-sighted pistol loaded with hollow-point bullets. His screaming wife had awakened him, saying there was an intruder in the house and he opened fire after a figure jumped from behind a brush pile in the street and lunged at him, he testified.
Angelo State University student Tracy Glass, 19, who had been visiting his sister in the same neighborhood, was found by police facedown in the street with five gunshot wounds. Authorities wondered if the teen, who was drunk, had wandered into the wrong home by mistake.
During closing arguments Wednesday morning, brothers Michael and Joe James Sawyer portrayed the case as a gun and property rights issue.
“He was doing one of the elemental things a man does, and that is, by God, to protect,” Joe James Sawyer said. “You tell me what he did wrong ... to deserve this (trial).”
The Sawyers repeatedly referred to Glass as a “burglar” who likely lunged at Lemes, they said, because he heard the homeowner yelling for his wife to call police.
“He’s nothing more than a cornered rat,” Joe James Sawyer told the jury. “He’s going to get caught. He won’t be going to football practice. He’s going to the pen.”
But jurors shouldn’t be so trusting of Lemes’ story, prosecutors David Lunan and Jason Garrahan responded. It doesn’t make sense that Glass, who had no criminal history, would have broken into a stranger’s home, or that he lunged at someone holding a gun, Lunan said.
It makes more sense, Lunan said, that Glass took a walk, got lost and perhaps made some noise outside that caused Lemes to get out of bed and confront him. There was nothing disturbed in the house, he pointed out.
The only horizontal bullet wound Glass suffered was to his back, Lunan added, suggesting that the other four bullets came after he had already started to collapse.
“In the absence of self-defense, he’s guilty of cold-blooded murder. His license to carry a concealed weapon is not a license to kill,” Lunan said.
A retrial date has not been set.
I understand why jurors need to refrain from engaging in any outside research or conversations about the particular case in question, but I see nothing wrong with a juror who conducts generic research like this. As long as this research involves: (1) material that does not relate to the specific facts of the case under deliberation, and (2) involves nothing more than self-education that could just as easily have been done at any time in the juror's life before this case went to trial, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Because God forbid that the juror do some intelligent research instead of taking the word of the Almighty Divine Judge like it was brought down from Mount Sinai?
}:-)4
_______________________________________________________
Maybe the intelligent research you speak of would have been better put to use in researching what happens if you ignore the law. Like it or not, this juror did a foolish thing.
Can they demonstrate or prove intent? Do they know for certain that the juror was going to use the legal definition? How are they able to assess the purpose the juror had in mind? Can they even assert, beyond reasonable doubt, that the juror’s purpose, intent or action was related to this case?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
None of that matters. What’s at issue here is what the juror did. And now a costly retrial is in order. Who’s gonna pay for that?
The judge and the lawyers want to control the situation and hate it when sovereign citizens act within their rights
“The REAL “justice” system.”
I don’t know why we call it a “justice” system. A “legal” system is what it is - a place where laws are applied and, somtimes, made. Any justice that is done is purely incidental to the process.
As if there’s not already enough disincentive to serve as a juror not you can be sued for it?
What is they say about being tried by people not even smart enough to get out of jury duty>
But this is a strange case. Scroll up and see the link. Was the (dead) victim really intending to do harm? He was drunk.
Did Lemes over-react? Did he chase the intruder in the street and shoot him in the back?
What would you or I do if we were buck naked on our property with the wife yelling, and a man comes charging at you? It would have helped if the dead guy was a crook with a record. But he wasn’t. He was just a drunken idiot. And it cost him his life.
“That is the job for the defense and prosecuting attorneys to present the case for them.”
Layers present evidence and make arguments. The judge instructs the jury in the law. The jury decides what are the facts and applies the law to the facts.
In theory anyway.
Yes the Juror messed up but 25K or jail? I hope the prosecutors remind the Judge of this stance if this defendant gets convicted and shows up asking the Judge for mercy at sentencing.
How is the case any different if the “idiot juror” had known “the legal definitions of murder and manslaughter” before the case had begun?
This jury apparently was not sequestered. Hence, a juror should be able to access public information about any subject s/he wishes. What if he stumbled across a legal term while reading an unrelated source?
It isn’t as though the guy was looking for something specific to this case. Maybe he was watching “Perry Mason” and wanted to catch Hamilton Burger in a goof.
No way would he be convicted of anything for doing this.
were the definitions obtained from a law book or wikipedia?
were the definitions in accorance with that states laws?
Jurry instuctions are given with the specific definitions. The court needs jurrors who pay attention to the case in front on them, not dream of tv characters.
This is an outrageous attack on the independence of the jury.
It was the judge that declared the mistrial, she should pay for it
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.