Search the Site
Books By Author
Great Sites to Follow
- Bob DeLeo guarantees that the legislature's joint committee structure will end this year
- A carbon fee/dividend for MA
- FBI ruse violated rights of Vegas hotel guest, US judge says - Hilton Head Island Packet...
- Toronto litigators to argue Supreme Court of Canada breathalyzer law case - Lexology (registration)...
- California, Medical Cannabis and Killing the American Dream - CounterPunch...
- 'Operation Safe Trails' leads to 27 arrests, weapons seizures behind Bayshore Mall - Eureka Times Standard...
- Fort Lee Police Nab 3 For Human Trafficking, Pimping Under Age Sisters - Bergen Dispatch...
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
Author Archives: mtc9393
Cornell University Law School defines Jury Tampering as: “The crime of attempting to influence a jury through any means other than presenting evidence and argument in court . . . .”
18 U.S. Code 1504 is titled “Influencing juror by writing” It reads: “Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing . . ., in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
This came to mind when I read an article in the Boston Globe on April 13 about the foreperson of the jury that is in the process of deliberating the fate of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It did not name her but in a rather unusual manner set about to describe all that was known about her and also the answers that she gave to the questions asked of her in court. In answer to one question she said: “I don’t like being the center of attention, . . . ” Despite her preference she is now having been the subject of this article.
The trial is still continuing, as you know, because having found Dzhokhar guilty the jury has to decide whether he is to be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison. This foreperson will lead the jurors in making that decision. I found the write up quite unusual because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a juror picked out for special attention during a trial like this.
NC asked: “Who was the person that commented on this site that the prosecution was gumming up this case? Who said that the judge was going to direct a verdict?” I have to plead guilty to both charged.
NC had chided me on other occasions when I suggested Judge Garsh would direct a verdict. He noted all the factors that tied Hernandez into the murder which could not be overlooked. He was right. Although in my defense, after hearing Hernandez’s girlfriend Shayanna Jenkins testify, I wrote her testimony was contrived and if the jury gets the case her lawyered-up testimony alone was enough to ensure Hernandez’s conviction.
Since you can’t argue with success there is no doubt that the prosecutors approach to the case was the right one. They must have known that from their prior dealings with Judge Garsh that throwing in everything they had was the only way to assure a victory. I noted in my post immediately before the verdict that if the jury kept in mind the big picture, which apparently it did despite closely examining all the bits and pieces of evidence, the result would be a guilty.
Congratulations to the prosecution team and the Massachusetts State Police for the win. I’m sure while the jury slowly sifted through the evidence they suffered as greatly as they did when the judge kept critical pieces of evidence from the jury’s view. In the end a skillful investigation and thorough prosecution secured the day. Congratulations also to the jurors who tried our patience but plodded on to the right result.
I have followed the Aaron Hernandez trial on Twitter at the hash mark #aaronhernandez. Three groups of people seem to be using it: those who know little about the trial but ask good questions; those who pose as knowledgeable but range from smart to pretenders; and the ham- and-eggers who waste everyone’s time with dumb comments.
The jurors are in their seventh day of deliberation having spent near 35 hours going over the multitude of evidence that was dropped upon them in the case. The jury watchers are getting impatient. One, a reporter, is suggesting that the judge light a fire under them by giving them a charge called the Tuey/Rodriguez telling them to get on with it since they are as well equipped to decide the issue as any group of 12 who will ever be assembled to do so.
The big problem with that suggestion is that there is no evidence such a charge is needed. That only should be given when the jury is deadlocked, that is, where the vote gets stuck at a specific number such as 9 to 3 and no one has moved from his or her position for a while. We learn that is the case when the jury advises the judge that they are at loggerheads.
Here, except for a note requesting a smoking break, there has been no word from the jury for about four and a half days of deliberation. That suggests the jurors are not deadlocked. What it does suggest is not known.
There’s something sinister in the story surrounding the recent attack on newly elected Treasurer Deb Goldberg. By the way I don’t know the women and did not support her. I voted for Martha and Maura so I expect I followed the Democratic ticket and gave her my vote.
I get the sense that the story that recently came out against her is a shot across her bow by the Boston Globe. It is telling her that if she does not play ball with it then she’ll be in for more unfavorable articles. I say that because reading the story quickly casts her in a negative light but reading it closely shows it is much ado about nothing. It has no newsworthiness yet received front page coverage.
Perhaps Goldberg has shown that she’s quite independent and marches to the beat of her own drummer and not to the tune of that newspaper. It’s a quality we need in our politicians but not one the media is particularly accepting of.
In its editorial the paper picked up on the story in its paper by Frank Philips about Goldberg’s interaction with an employee who worked for a small Newton-based nonprofit Adoptions With Love where Goldberg is the president. The employee, Hannah Fisher, blames Goldberg for her losing her job even though everyone agrees she was looking to leave that job in any event. Philips wrote Ms. Goldberg got “entangled . . . in an awkward conflict: using her position as the state treasurer-elect with access to state employment documents to benefit a private nonprofit agency she heads.”
Hernandez’s jury has been out since last Tuesday. It received the case after listening to the closing arguments by counsel and the judge instructing it on the law. The judge’s instructions took an 81 plus minutes which seems to be quite lengthy given that the case involved only one defendant and the issues quite straightforward.
The jury’s composition is seven women and five men; a white middle-age woman with dark hair is the foreperson of the jury. She is the one who will set the stage on how the deliberations are to take place. She was appointed by the judge.
Wednesday and to mid-morning Thursday the jury asked questions relating to possession of the gun and the date when Hernandez possessed the .22 ammunition. Unusual questions considering that it was deciding whether he committed a murder and these seemed minor matters in the big picture. The rest of Thursday, four hours Friday, and six hours Monday, minus a smoking break, the deliberations continued and except for the request for the smoking break nothing has been heard back from the jury.
It would seem that whatever confusion existed as shown by the early questions over the law as set out in the judge’s instructions has been clarified and the jurors are down to considering the facts. The lawyers who tried the case are feeling the tensions of this lengthy deliberations. The early indications pointed to a favorable result for Hernandez but now it is anyone’s guess as to what is happening. Any question now from the jury would be welcome by the lawyers as a cool glass of water to a parched man since it would give an indication to them of what was happening. Each time a court officer moves toward them, or a door opens, or some unusual movement occurs around them their stomachs jump.
The reports from the courtroom of the trial of Aaron Hernandez where the evidence has concluded and the jury has been deliberating since last Tuesday is that when the jurors are not in the room Hernandez is in an upbeat mood, smiling and rather enjoying himself. I would guess that he feels the jury’s delay in coming down with a verdict augurs good news especially after he heard the questions the jury asked the judge on the second and third day of deliberations.
These related to the date of the charge of possession of ammunition and one involving “constructive possession,” that is, if one of the guys with Hernandez had the gun could Hernandez still be charged with its possession. The judge rightly defined the law regarding it telling the jury it boils down to whether he controlled its use.
One of Hernandez’s attorneys goal was to get the gun, a .45 caliber Glock, out of Hernandez’s hands. That question may have indicated that they had succeeded in doing that at least in the mind of one juror. At that point on Thursday you’d have to believe things in the jury room were going Hernandez’s way . His actions showed he and his attorneys felt that. I did read that the prosecutors were looked decidedly unhappy. I would guess that is how I would have looked were I prosecuting the case.
I originally thought this meant the jury decided to talk about the minor charges first before getting to the issue of the murder. The alternative, it had already decided the murder seemed unlikely. This became clearer after the question was answered on Thursday. For the rest of that day and the following day (which the jurors only deliberated until 1:00 pm) nothing was heard from the jury. It now seems nothing has been decided.
The days started out (I’m following the tweets) with the judge having the prosecutors, defense counsel, Hernandez and two jurors (one at a time) at the side bar for a conference. It is because two jurors reported that a television news truck followed them as they went on their way home last night. I assume the television reporters were trying to identify the jurors taking a note of their license plates so that they could quickly get a “scoop” after the trial on the jury deliberations.
Judge seems upset. Apparently threatens the TV station involved that it will be barred from the courtroom, not that this means much. There’s little left to see and the TV station can follow the live feed.
Judge suggests somehow a felony of juror harassment may be involved although that does not seem to be the case. Some talk of mistrial comes up but that seems far-fetched just because of this incident. Someone did tweet that a mistrial would be good because another judge would then handle the case. Another tweeted that the punishment for the TV reporter following the jurors would be to spend one night with the judge.
It seems to me the judge is way overreacting. There’s no law against trying to identify who the jurors are. It seems to me it is in the TV station’s right to do this as long as it does not approach the juror. How was the juror affected by the TV van? Was the juror surprised that the trial was receiving TV coverage? If it affected juror the juror should be removed. That is the remedy.
Now judge is threatening the TV station and demanding it appear in the courtroom. Someone should tell the judge to calm down. If the TV station did something wrong there’s plenty of time to address it.
Aaron’s Hernandez’s jury’s question had to have made the prosecutors toss and turn in their sleep, if they slept at all. As best I can tell it asked the judge according to this report: “questions to clarify two weapon and ammunition possession charges Hernandez faces in addition to the murder charge. Hernandez is charged with illegally possessing a .45-caliber handgun and .22-caliber ammunition.”
Another report has it that the jury asked “if the principle of “constructive possession,” one of the elements of both charges, means that Hernandez intended to use the firearm.” Judge tells the jurors that means he must have some type of control over it.
The nightmare the prosecutors had last night goes back to the decision to charge Hernandez with those minor charges in the first place. I never could figure out why prosecutors add in the minor charges in a murder or other serious felony case. The idea is to convict the guy or gal of the offense you believe was committed; throwing in the junk can give the jury a way out or confuse it so that it no longer focuses on what is important. A prosecutor should asked “will I be happy if the jury gives the defendant a pass on the main charge and convicts on the minor charges?”
In this case it will be little comfort to anyone except Hernandez and the defense team if he is found guilty of possession of ammunition and not guilty of murder. The initial blunder in bringing this charge is the reason the jury asked the question. It should have been avoided.
But it is worse than that, much worse. It seems to suggest, and when I say this you must remember the way juries work is often inscrutable, that one or some jurors are having doubts that Hernandez did the shooting. If that’s the case, much of the prosecutors compelling evidence is being ignored.
I wrote the other day how the Wall Street Journal complained that Obama was not helping Israel and the Sunni nations in their fight against Bashar al-Assad the leader of Syria. That got me wondering. What is it that Israel is doing in the fight to remove Assad.
It certainly hasn’t put any of its ground forces into the fight. It borders right up against Syria in fact it occupies what used to be a part of Syria called the Golan Heights until 1967 when it was occupied by Israel’s military. It could easily pour its forces over into Syria without facing any opposition and be extremely effective in the fight against Assad, and also in the fight against the Islamic State (IS,ISIS). The question is why isn’t it doing it.
It’s not that its military is that weak. Here’s what a recent article stated: “Jane’s Information Group, a British publishing company specializing in military, aerospace and transportation topics, published its yearly rankings of the world militaries, and the results regarding the Middle East are not surprising. The Israel Defense Forces was ranked is the mightiest military power in the region.
It then went on: “1. Israel – with a $15 billion defense budget, 176,500 active frontline personnel, 870 tanks, 680 aircraft, Israel has space assets, advanced fighter jets, high-tech armed drones, and reportedly, nuclear weapons. Its air force has incredibly high entry and training standards. Thanks to Israel’s small size, the military can rapidly mobilize its reserves on relatively short notice.”
I did not watch one game of the March Madness. Nor did I watch any college basketball games during the year. As I noted previously, the term college basketball at the March Madness level is an oxymoron. The players on the teams that go to the top of the heap aren’t college players. The freshman players who won the Big Tournament for Duke giving its underpaid coach, Coach K, who reported earns 9 million a year (that can’t be true, is it? Bill Belichick only gets a measly 7.5 million) another feather in his cap, have as much to do with Duke as my cousin Roger to whom if you said the word Duke would immediately think “he want’s to duke it out” and would respond, “OK – put your dukes up.”
Here’s what one writer for the LA Times said: “Duke played with freshmen stars such as Jahlil Okafor, Justise Winslow and Tyus Jones, who are expected to bolt for the NBA.” How are they Duke University basketball players when none who went to Duke intend to graduate from it; or to stay for more than a year, perhaps two at the most? They are more akin to Minor League baseball players who are looking for a chance to join the Majors; in the case of these “college” basketball players their University is the NBA.
I don’t mind the fans cheering for one team over another. Usually there’s a little bit of green ventured on the outcome. I knew some people who could not watch a game unless they had a wager on it. They might as well be at the race track betting on trotters; (by the way did you ever notice the guys driving the carts (are they jockeys?) behind the trotters. They go by the tote board just before the start of the race to take a look at the latest odds. I’ve always put that in the same league as professional wrestling but that never detracted from the sport (is it a sport?). You learn to bet not on the best trotter but on the most devious driver.)