George Costanza
A Friendly Liberal
Isn't that why they have a Jury Poll: To weed-out Jurists that might have an unfair bias against the defendant?
The problem with this is, how many people are going to step up and admit to racial prejudice? Not too many.
I once had a jury find my client guilty of murder one. Two years later, a guy came up to me on the street and identified himself as one of the jurors on that case. I asked him what the main thing was that the jury relied upon in convicting the defendant. He said: "The defendant was Mexican. The dead guy was Mexican. We all know that those people kill each other."
On the basis of that chance encounter, I was able to get my client a new trial.
However, the point here is, that when the jury was first being selected, this guy had sailed through voir dire, representing to everyone in the courtroom that he was unbiased and "could be fair."
Let's be honest here.
Who is not being honest?
Your job is to use the black and whiteness of the law to provide the best defense you can and get your client off regardless of guilt or innocence.
Thank you for telling me what you think my job is. The job of a defense attorney is to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. If that is done, the jury must acquit.
It does not matter what I think about my client's guilt or innocence. Defense counsel take cases to trial every day of the year where they are virtually certain of their client's guilt, many times where the defendant has confessed guilt to the attorney. Doesn't matter.
Now, within this system, there are several things defense counsel may NOT do. A defense attorney may not knowingly present false or perjured evidence. Contrary to what more than a few people think, defense attorneys do not huddle with their clients, dreaming up false defenses which are then presented to the jury. Further, if defense counsel knows that the defendant is going to insist upon testifying and is going to lie on the stand, he/she cannot put the defendant on the stand. If the defendant still insists on testifying (which he has a right to do), in a situation such as this, defense counsel must withdraw from the case and another attorney will be appointed to continue with the case.
I doubt you will answer, but WAS he guilty? Did you get your client a new trial based on a technical point because the juror popped off or because justice wasn't served? This juror was one of twelve. I realize that technically, his comments make a difference. But obviously the other 11 voted guilty too. Did they share this one guys sentiment?
Why do you doubt that I will answer? The only reason I did not mention the result of the re-trial first time around is that it is not relevant to the point under discussion. On second re-trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. On third re-trial, he was found guilty of second degree murder (note that he was originally found guilty of first degree murder). I did not handle either of the two re-trials. I did handle all of the litigation connected with getting him a new trial and, of course, the original trial.
Every time I hear someone griping about a "technicality," all I (or any other defense attorney) can do is shake my head. You present your question here as if the existence of a "technicality" and the "serving of justice" are mutually exclusive. How about YOU being honest - do you really think that a jury with someone on it such as the prejudiced juror in this instance, is capable of "rendering justice"? It looks like you do, judging by your "11 other jurors" comment.
We will never know whether anyone else on the jury shared the sentiments of the prejudiced juror. The law seals information (names, addresses, phone numbers) on jurors. The first thing I wanted to do was to contact all of the other jurors and question them as to that precise question - whether or not they were also prejudiced or if anything said by the prejudiced juror played any part in deliberations.
You know those "liberal, activist courts" you cons are always complaining about? The court would not allow the defense to contact any of the other jurors. Why? The stated reason of the court was the legal equivalent of, "because."
Last edited: