Posted on 04/10/2005 6:13:51 AM PDT by bakatare
News Break 04/10/2005 05:19:43 EST Court Overturns 1995 Murder Conviction
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court has tossed out a 1995 murder conviction and ordered a new trial for a man convicted of killing his estranged wife's fiance. The court said buttons the victim's family wore at the trial may have influenced jurors. Mathew Musladin, who is serving a life sentence, maintained that he acted in self-defense when he shot Tom Studer in 1994.
In ordering a new trial for Musladin, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday said the buttons, which showed Studer's picture, may have biased the jury.
"The buttons essentially argue that Studer was the innocent party and that the defendant was necessarily guilty," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote.
But Judge David Thompson, in his dissent, said the buttons were a symbol of a family's grief.
In 1990, the San Francisco-based appeals court tossed a rape conviction on grounds that jurors might have been prejudiced because some trial observers wore pins that read "Women Against Rape."
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
"May have"? Did anyone even ask the jurors?
All I know if the 9th Circuit is involved, a murderer may walk.
All I know is the when the 9th circuit is involved, it is likely a murderer will "walk"
The 9th Circus clowns strike again.
Is the victim still dead, or did they reverse that, as well?
You could argue tha just the presence of family members at the trial could influence the jury. By this asinine reasoning, family members should not be allowed to show up.
The two majority 'judges' were appointed by Carter (Reinhardt) and Clinton (Marsha S. Berzon) and the dissenting JUDGE (David R. Thompson) was appointed by RR.
The complete 19 page "OPINION" is HERE but note it's in .pdf
Unless the perp did something against a fellow JUDGE.
Do any of us think that the parents of Michael Jackson should be barred from the courtroom because their presence might influence the jury positively towards Jackson?
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the 9th circuit has a pretty good point in this case. I don't know about overturning a conviction, but the judge in the original case screwed up by allowing the family to wear the buttons.
By having a button with a message like that it's like allowing them to testify without being cross examined.
But where do you draw the line? Any emotions shown by the audience can serve to influence the jury. This ruling suggest that no one should be allowed in the court room because just their presence could influence the jury somehow. Suggesting the jury members decided the case based on buttons is way too much of a stretch.
I agree with you. No one should be allowed to go into court to propagandize and agitate. The button-wearers should have been told to take off their "messages," get out, or be arrested for contempt of court.
Not true. If buttons are as passive as you say, why aren't you allowed to wear a candidates button into a polling place?
Buttons are nothing but miniature billboards and as such have no place in a courtroom.
And yes, unfortunately, many jury pools look like they came from a Jerry Springer show, so one needs to be careful about what is worn in court.
I think you draw the line at communicating with the jury through spoken or written word. Would you have let the family stand and make a comment? How about hold up signs? I think these buttons are the same as doing either of those.
Like I said. The original judge screwed up on this one.
The judge who allowed this demonstation in his or her courtroom should be brought up on charges.
If buttons are OK, how about armbands ? Hand held signs ?
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.