Started By
Message
Vandy Rape Case Declared Mistrial
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:05 pm
LINK
Apparently the Jury foreman was involved in another rape case a decade ago and did not disclose it to the courts, leading to this declaration.
Apparently the Jury foreman was involved in another rape case a decade ago and did not disclose it to the courts, leading to this declaration.
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 6:06 pm
5
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:25 pm to VFL1800FPD
quote:
Apparently the Jury foreman was involved in another rape case a decade ago and did not disclose it to the courts, leading to this declaration.
But your link says:
quote:
Watkins found that a juror, who did not disclose during jury selection that he was a victim of statutory rape, was biased and could not have been impartial in considering the case.
So was the jury foreman involved in another rape case, or was the jury foreman the victim of a rape?
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:26 pm to ConwayGamecock
You're splitting hairs here...
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:27 pm to ConwayGamecock
I believe the juror was the subject of a rape case, the victim of statutory rape, and somehow felt he didn't need to mention this during voir dire or didn't come forward truthfully on the details. Piece of shite.
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:30 pm to GeauxToBed
I guess so...the OP read more to me that the jury foreman (the linked article just called him a juror) was part of another jury for another rape case, but I don't think that would result in a mis-trial. I see now what he meant...
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:36 pm to VFL1800FPD
That juror is a fricking idiot... unbelievable.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 6:38 pm to VFL1800FPD
Damn. I get the fact that the juror was a victim, but they need to prosecute jurors who lie during selection. What a waste everyone's time and money, and more time and money will now be wasted. And if the defendants are innocent (I get the feeling they're really, really not in this case, but still...) it's like cruel and unusual punishment, dragging their trials out like this.
I wonder if even that could result in a mistrial if there's evidence the juror has formed prejudicial opinions about that type of crime because of his experience as a juror in a prior rape trial. Not an automatic mistrial, but could be the seeds of proving there's a problem.
quote:
guess so...the OP read more to me that the jury foreman (the linked article just called him a juror) was part of another jury for another rape case, but I don't think that would result in a mis-trial. I see now what he meant...
I wonder if even that could result in a mistrial if there's evidence the juror has formed prejudicial opinions about that type of crime because of his experience as a juror in a prior rape trial. Not an automatic mistrial, but could be the seeds of proving there's a problem.
This post was edited on 6/23/15 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:04 pm to randomways
Should be automatic if there is no other alternate. But seeing as this was the foreman, his taking part in deliberations tainted the jury.
The reason it is automatic is because the hiding of this info would affect whether the defense would have challenged this juror for cause, which they would have.
The reason it is automatic is because the hiding of this info would affect whether the defense would have challenged this juror for cause, which they would have.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:05 pm to lowspark12
quote:
That juror is a fricking idiot... unbelievable.
If you can't come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty there is a good chance you're an idiot.
As to the mistrial, there may be a chance for civil suit. I haven't seen anything along those lines though, and it would be horrible precedent.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:06 pm to John Redcorn
I should add, by automatic, I mean next to automatic. The defense simply had to say they'd have challenged and the judge would have declared mistrial.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:11 pm to randomways
quote:
they need to prosecute jurors who lie during selection.
He didn't disclose it, different from telling a flat out lie according to the court of law. Plus in this situation public sentiment for going after this guy would be too much for the judge and DA to handle. Punish the guy twice for the rape?
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:13 pm to VFL1800FPD
As an old fart I've been called to jury duty many times. The closest I've come to serving was for a murder trial. Yay, says me. Inexplicably, I made the final 14. After several in-depth questions about all of our acquaintances that went on for several hours, a fellow juror raises her hand and says, "I'm sorry, but is this Joe Blow that lives out on Oak Ridge Road you're talking about?"
DA: "Yes ma'am, it is. Have you heard of him?"
Juror: "Oh yes, I know him very well, and I can tell you..."
DA: "That's fine, ma'am. No need to say anything else."
Juror: "... that I'll believe anything you tell me about him, because..."
DA: "Please, ma'am. That's fine. No need to..."
Juror: "... he's no damn good. Never has been. If you say he murdered somebody, I believe it."
DA: "Sigh..."
and then we were all dismissed.
DA: "Yes ma'am, it is. Have you heard of him?"
Juror: "Oh yes, I know him very well, and I can tell you..."
DA: "That's fine, ma'am. No need to say anything else."
Juror: "... that I'll believe anything you tell me about him, because..."
DA: "Please, ma'am. That's fine. No need to..."
Juror: "... he's no damn good. Never has been. If you say he murdered somebody, I believe it."
DA: "Sigh..."
and then we were all dismissed.
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:15 pm to VFL1800FPD
I don't get it completely. So take the upcoming trial of this Roof asshat in SC. Who would have never been a victim of racism or had racist thoughts anytime in their life for them to find 12 untainted jurors?
Posted on 6/23/15 at 8:41 pm to SamuelClemens
It's not his past that taints him per se. If he had disclosed, he could have been asked if it would affect his ability to judge this case on its merits. If he said no, the judge could take him at his word and not allow a strike for cause.
That's how they'll get a jury in SC. Huge pool, many will say they won't be affected by their own experiences.
That's how they'll get a jury in SC. Huge pool, many will say they won't be affected by their own experiences.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News