Convict's mom goes undercover, gets dirt on juror

#1 12-04-2008, 07:44 PM

Check out what this Mom does for her imprisoned son. Wow.
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/200...her/index.html

#2 12-04-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grammybear

Oh my. Boy that took some guts for this lady to do what she did. Now I want to know was her son guilty or just guilty by the jury. Interesting read.

jmoo

Yeah grammybear, it seems the subject of actual guilt wasn't even addressed. It was all about Mom.

#3 12-04-2008, 09:02 PM

i bet he was guitly of the actual crime. the mother just wanted to make sure he had a fair trial which sounds like he didnt. i believe we all deserve a fair trial even if we are guilty of the crime we are being charged with.

#4 12-05-2008, 03:04 AM

Here's the mom AND the victim ... who's DEAD.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2...yn_sting200901

MORE on the case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/ny...l?ref=nyregion

#5 12-05-2008, 11:15 AM

Thanks for the links Riverwalk! Something tells me that this mom wouldn't have accepted a guilty verdict no matter what.

LisaM22 · #6 12-05-2008, 11:55 AM

I have always thought juror deliberations should be recorded and the judge and the lawyers able to review them, but not the public

LisaM22 · #7 12-05-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnielee333

i bet he was guitly of the actual crime. the mother just wanted to make sure he had a fair trial which sounds like he didnt. i believe we all deserve a fair trial even if we are guilty of the crime we are being charged with.

I agree, everyone deserves a fair trial, this juror should be charged with a crime if what the juror said is true imo

MaybytheBay · #8 12-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaM22

I have always thought juror deliberations should be recorded and the judge and the lawyers able to review them, but not the public

I concur-I think it should be mandated.
There have been cases were it has been done and there were no significant ramifications to the performance of the jury or it's 'sanctity' of privacy.

RayStar · #9 12-05-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaM22

I have always thought juror deliberations should be recorded and the judge and the lawyers able to review them, but not the public

Do you think the jurors should be made aware of the recording? I say no but that may not be legal. Oh, this woman has nerves of steel. I am proud of her.

LisaM22 · #10 12-05-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayStar

Do you think the jurors should be made aware of the recording? I say no but that may not be legal. Oh, this woman has nerves of steel. I am proud of her.

it should be expected, so yes, they should know and after one time of a jury being caught behaving badly it would be known as a case would be declared a mistrial - kinda hard to keep that from the public as to why a mistrial was declared, but the actual recording should never be made public to ensure the privacy of the jurors

LisaM22 · #11 12-05-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaybytheBay

I concur-I think it should be mandated.
There have been cases were it has been done and there were no significant ramifications to the performance of the jury or it's 'sanctity' of privacy.

yep, I see no issues with this either and it would assure a fair jury trial

Jayne · #12 12-05-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaM22

yep, I see no issues with this either and it would assure a fair jury trial

Hey...when you call insurance companies, etc. you get that "recording" that says your call may (or will) be recorded for XXX purposes. Either you speak or not..there's no choice.

Witnesses are sworn in to tell the truth and nothing but the truth...and their testimony is recorded by a stenographer, etc. Since jurys swear to uphold the law, be impartial, bring no prejudices - as in knowing a party to the action, etc., then their "speaks" and "deliberations" should be recorded, but held, of course in the strictest of confidences and heard/read only by fiduciary type person(s) who are "compliance officers" of sorts. This could go the way of having a misplaced hung jury or acquittal, as well..but who would inquire about that? Certainly not the defendant..but perhaps the victim's family?

Maybe Brooklyn might consider "making history" by going through the correct channels, legal and judicial, to employ such a 'standard'.

In defense of Hynes...I worked under him many years ago and in various departments/bureaus and never knew him to be dishonest or to condone any such behaviour. This is a very troubling case. The boy may well be guilty, at least in some capacity, but it appears others were "swept over..or under the rug" and unfortunately, it may have been political, strong arm tactics, who knows what. The boy deserves a new trial, IMO, and a proper conviction with more evidence and more information and perhaps more defendants pulled in. I wonder if any turned state's evidence or testified at grandjury on a special consideration or immunity.

jmo

j

jmo

j

Jayne · #13 12-05-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bratlings

Actually you do have a choice. You can specifically request that they NOT record it and they will stop.

Well..OK...but some I have not had a choice...can't remember which ones..but when I said no..the "recording and phone" hung up! No kidding.

But, be that as it may...the rest of what I posted, I do believe should be the case...it's ensuring there is no "funny business" going on in a deliberation that decides a person's fate. There must be a way to have it done...restructured...so it isn't violating the "jury decides".

Just too bad...that people violate their "oath" (civic duty...and to be impartial and not coming in with 'obvious' prejudices and discriminatory attitudes toward having No Connection with the defendant, etc.)

Sorry...about not getting in there that yes..as you said..there are times you can say No . . . many I call, I just hang up if it bothers me...but it never does..I figure it ensures I'm getting the proper information and if not..then it's "on record" as to that agent or telephone handler?

Carol25 · #14 12-08-2008, 02:32 AM

Just happened to come across this thread and it certainly is interesting! I think this woman has to be commended for her fortitude and her husband for going along and believing in her. It had to be so worrying for him!

It is also an interesting thought about recording jury deliberations as well. I certainly can see the merit of this. However, I can also see that restrictions would have to be put in place for its retrieval and use. There would have to be a complaint issued by a juror for it to be released to the judge.

We can all see that any defeated attorney claiming anything and requiring that the deliberations be heard. Even on the most recent OJ case, can't you just hear Galanter now, "I bet someone said something about the murder in '95! Let's listen to hear! No fishing expeditions allowed.