Jury Melee
I have been following the Scott/Laci Peterson murder trial on TV. I haven't done this willingly. But I happened to subscribe for the first time to Court TV on my satellite dish just when that case was swinging into high gear, and Court TV's commentators throughout its afternoon schedule can't get enough of it. Unfortunately I can.
If memory serves me correctly, one of the two worst of them, James Curtis (the other scoundrel is Nancy Grace), called the murders of Laci Peterson and her as yet unborn child the "Crime of the Century." I don't understand Curtis' thinking there, and I regard it as just one of the numerous times when his mouth runs way ahead of his brain. If a century means the last 100 years regardless of when one turns, then Curtis must never have paid attention when anything approaching the subject of history was in his vicinity. Either of the two World Wars alone furnish ocean liners of crimes that rival and then outdo the Peterson in awfulness and every other respect.
Now, after many weeks of testimony, the Peterson jury itself has been engaged in marathon deliberations for about a week on this almost entirely circumstantial case, and suddenly the events surrounding that jury have taken turns that throw a lot of interesting light on the jury system not only of California but also of the U.S. itself.
This I am enjoying, because, though they try to pretend it's not, I believe that it's bending all those Court TV afternoon heads out of shape, and that's all to the good. To a woman and at least one of the men, they have been vilifying Scott Peterson unmercifully and unendingly for weeks and months, and in effect they have been crying for him to be drawn and quartered. So they hoped for a quick verdict of guilty, so that all their expertise -- and bile -- could have been proven correct. After all, the O.J. Simpson jurors only needed four hours to reach a verdict, albeit -- in their eyes -- the wrong one.
Instead, yesterday, after the Peterson jury had already been at it for several days, Juror No. 8, apparently a prosecution-leaning blue collar type, complained that Juror No. 7 had conducted an independent investigation of her own, a big no-no, and the judge threw No. 7 out and replaced her with Alternate Juror No. 1, and that, by California law, necessitated starting the deliberations all over again!
Then today Juror No. 5, the foreman, was also removed by the judge and replaced as a juror by Alternate Juror No. 2 and as the foreman by Juror No. 6. As of this writing a few hours later, it is not yet known why the judge did this.
No. 5 had been the juror who had drawn the lion's share of the speculations by the ravenous Court TV people, because he had both medical and legal training, and because he had taken copious notes during the trial. Also he himself had replaced a previous juror early in the trial.
The commentators generally took a dim view of having a lawyer on the jury, thinking that he might try to take the other jurors through too detailed a view of the evidence.
On top of all this, it has been known that Juror No. 11 is due for some elective surgery on or about the 15th and would have to be replaced, though it's now possible that, in light of the intervening turmoil, she may choose to wait a little longer for her operation.
So far the afternoon wise guys and girls on Court TV don't seem to know what to make of all this, even though it does give them lots more to speculate about through the day and so "earn" their pay. The consensus so far is that most likely it means the result will be a hung jury.
I hope so, because from where I stand, the prosecution never produced enough evidence, personally, forsensically, or in any other wise that would justify soon killing a man or subjecting him to the slower death of long years in prison.
If memory serves me correctly, one of the two worst of them, James Curtis (the other scoundrel is Nancy Grace), called the murders of Laci Peterson and her as yet unborn child the "Crime of the Century." I don't understand Curtis' thinking there, and I regard it as just one of the numerous times when his mouth runs way ahead of his brain. If a century means the last 100 years regardless of when one turns, then Curtis must never have paid attention when anything approaching the subject of history was in his vicinity. Either of the two World Wars alone furnish ocean liners of crimes that rival and then outdo the Peterson in awfulness and every other respect.
Now, after many weeks of testimony, the Peterson jury itself has been engaged in marathon deliberations for about a week on this almost entirely circumstantial case, and suddenly the events surrounding that jury have taken turns that throw a lot of interesting light on the jury system not only of California but also of the U.S. itself.
This I am enjoying, because, though they try to pretend it's not, I believe that it's bending all those Court TV afternoon heads out of shape, and that's all to the good. To a woman and at least one of the men, they have been vilifying Scott Peterson unmercifully and unendingly for weeks and months, and in effect they have been crying for him to be drawn and quartered. So they hoped for a quick verdict of guilty, so that all their expertise -- and bile -- could have been proven correct. After all, the O.J. Simpson jurors only needed four hours to reach a verdict, albeit -- in their eyes -- the wrong one.
Instead, yesterday, after the Peterson jury had already been at it for several days, Juror No. 8, apparently a prosecution-leaning blue collar type, complained that Juror No. 7 had conducted an independent investigation of her own, a big no-no, and the judge threw No. 7 out and replaced her with Alternate Juror No. 1, and that, by California law, necessitated starting the deliberations all over again!
Then today Juror No. 5, the foreman, was also removed by the judge and replaced as a juror by Alternate Juror No. 2 and as the foreman by Juror No. 6. As of this writing a few hours later, it is not yet known why the judge did this.
No. 5 had been the juror who had drawn the lion's share of the speculations by the ravenous Court TV people, because he had both medical and legal training, and because he had taken copious notes during the trial. Also he himself had replaced a previous juror early in the trial.
The commentators generally took a dim view of having a lawyer on the jury, thinking that he might try to take the other jurors through too detailed a view of the evidence.
On top of all this, it has been known that Juror No. 11 is due for some elective surgery on or about the 15th and would have to be replaced, though it's now possible that, in light of the intervening turmoil, she may choose to wait a little longer for her operation.
So far the afternoon wise guys and girls on Court TV don't seem to know what to make of all this, even though it does give them lots more to speculate about through the day and so "earn" their pay. The consensus so far is that most likely it means the result will be a hung jury.
I hope so, because from where I stand, the prosecution never produced enough evidence, personally, forsensically, or in any other wise that would justify soon killing a man or subjecting him to the slower death of long years in prison.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 3:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home