Justin also continued the "Disturbing" rumors about jury misconduct with #5 .....so, when Rita questioned him again as to how JF felt now, as 24 hours before the verdict he was predicting a not guilty and seemed to feel so differently about #6--JF started to get red in the face, said emotion again, etc, that he always said there was going to be a verdict. Then he went on to talk about how disturbing it is that they, the jurors were talking and thinking about book deals.
Here is where I think he is going and where MG wants to use him to do damage: JF stated absolutely they all discussed writing books etc while he was still on the case.
But of course, it was certainly fine for JF to discuss back then, but just "sinful" to hear of the final group having had thoughts of this.
At this point, Howard, the prosecution's guy stated "you just heard Justin take a nose dive." Just in looked red as a tomato, but couldn't think of a response. Rita closed out the segment. Howard finally said
From the infamous Mouser appeal case. Case law denying Mouser's claim that the jury acted improperly in visiting the location of where his step-daughter's body was found.-
In People v. Bogle (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 770 (Bogle), a set of keys and a safe were introduced into evidence. The jury discovered that one of the keys on the key ring opened the safe. The appellate court concluded that the jury had not engaged in improper experimentation and that the jury’s discovery of the relationship between the key and the safe did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. It explained that in light of the testimony presented at trial, “the jury was entitled to determine, from the evidence it was given, the character and extent of the defendant’s relationship to the safe. Trying the keys on the safe was an exercise in that pursuit, not a foray into a new field.” (Id. at p. 780.) Bogle relied in part on a Louisiana rape case, State v. Gaston (La. 1982) 412 So.2d 574. There, the victim identified defendant by a skin discoloration on his shoulder that she testified was visible because he was wearing a tank top when he accosted her. During deliberations, the jury asked and was permitted to see the defendant dressed in the tank top, which had been admitted into evidence. The reviewing court concluded that the jurors had not viewed new evidence; they “merely reexamined the evidence in a slightly different context as an aid in reaching a verdict.” (Bogle, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 781, citing State v. Gaston, supra, 412 So.2d at pp. 576-577.)
Who is this creep Herskowitz(?), who looks and sounds like an undertaker? For whatever reason he keeps popping up everywhere. And why the sleepy Hammer? He is introduced as a former prosecutor, apparently now unemployed.