High and mighty

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:55 pm

News-gathering organizations asked the judge overseeing the Martha Stewart trial to release the names of the jurors in the case when they deliver their verdict. A federal appeals court has ruled U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum was wrong to bar reporters and the public from watching jury selection last month. Cedarbaum has not indicated whether she will release the names. But a letter to the judge from 17 organizations said jurorsâ€™ names are routinely released after trialsâ€”and that interviews of former jurors benefit the judicial system. (AP)***Please. File your motion if you must but don't pretend that interviewing jurors serves any purpose other than padding stories.***

ShiningPath · **Posted:** Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:07 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Please. File your motion if you must but don't pretend that interviewing jurors serves any purpose other than padding stories.<hr></blockquote>
You're kidding, right? Sometimes the most interesting stories come from juror interviews. The verdict is the lead, but the rest of it isn't "padding." Were certain witnesses credible? Did the jury seriously consider lesser charges? If the jurors are willing to be interviewed, they can help the public more fully understand how important decisions were made. Sometimes juror interviews are so revealing that they become the basis for appeals.[ February 27, 2004: Message edited by: ShiningPath ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:57 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ShiningPath:

You're kidding, right? Sometimes the most interesting stories come from juror interviews. The verdict is the lead, but the rest of it isn't "padding." Were certain witnesses credible? Did the jury seriously consider lesser charges? If the jurors are willing to be interviewed, they can help the public more fully understand how important decisions were made. Sometimes juror interviews are so revealing that they become the basis for appeals.[ February 27, 2004: Message edited by: ShiningPath ]<hr></blockquote>Sometimes, but rarely. After the verdict is in, what jurors say is irrelevant in the overwhelming majority of cases. Also, it isn't our job to "benefit the judicial system."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:59 am

While we're at it, can we please stop inverviewing "outside lawyers not connected with the case" for their speculation on what the defense, prosecution, judge and jury are thinking? Cover the trial and let the case speak for itself as it unfolds.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:53 pm

I strongly disagree with you here, Phillip. I think we need more interviews with legal observers, not less, to counter the profound ignorance that has evolved in our society regarding how the legal system is supposed to work.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:18 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I strongly disagree with you here, Phillip. I think we need more interviews with legal observers, not less, to counter the profound ignorance that has evolved in our society regarding how the legal system is supposed to work.<hr></blockquote>Much of that ignorance might be traced to speculation and generalization by "legal observers," although, in fairness, most such nonsense occurs on television. I also understand that television "dramas" and movies present a distorted picture of the legal system, but that's not our problem.[ February 28, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:21 pm

**Who says interviewing jurors doesn't add insight?**The defense team told jurors, â€œDonâ€™t believe it. It didnâ€™t happen, so donâ€™t believe it,â€ McMahon said. â€œBut we . . . were sitting there going, but we saw this and we heard that. And, you know, we have evidence of this. And, you know, testimony of that. So it was like, we need more. You know? We were waiting. We were hoping.â€

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:51 pm

Well, I got an interesting perspective on this when I happened to be an alternate juror for a rather fascinating case out my way...(guy took a university classroom hostage, claiming the government had implanted microchips in his penis....when guy rushed him to take the rifle, perp shot one of the guy's testicles off).Anyway, I was the lone surviving alternate (the other had passed out in the courtroom when the victim was describing being shot in the balls), so I was the first juror released after the charge was read. A couple TV wankers asked to interview me when I left court, and I of course told them to fuck off.That pointless tale being told, let me say that interviewing anyone on my jury would have been a waste of time. A colleague who covered courts for years described jurors as "people being too stupid to get out of serving on a jury."The best was a pizza delivery guy, a kid, who would yell out "It's Miller time!!" whenever the judge would begin giving his instructions to us at the end of court every day. I'm sure whatever this guy said would have been a great addition to any reportage.

I can't recall, in cases I covered, ever getting a single relevant thing out of a juror.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:26 pm

If all jurors are stupid and say stupid things, should we withhold these facts from the public?Most readers who follow a trial will want to know what the jury was thinking when it chose to convict or acquit. I see no harm in satisfying that natural curiosity.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:53 pm

Ah, but what would jury time be without profit? From the AP Malvo story of March 10:Doug Keefer, a juror who plans to write a book about the Malvo trial, said the jury made the right choice."For me the important part was he was convicted of the capital murder charges. It's my opinion there was some influence from John Muhammad."***If you're going to write a book, best not to say you and 11 others fucked up, eh?

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:26 pm

Phil:During the Tortorici trial, the main thread running through jurors' minds during the course of the day was "food...when?" and "must have coffee and bathroom." Pete: The juror from the Malvo trial says: "For me the important part was he was convicted of the capital murder charges. It's my opinion there was some influence from John Muhammad."****With hard-hitting commentary like that, this book can't miss.

SusanV · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:29 pm

Pete, where do you see a fuckup?

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:44 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
Phil:During the Tortorici trial, the main thread running through jurors' minds during the course of the day was "food...when?" and "must have coffee and bathroom." <hr></blockquote>I understand. But I still think it makes sense to get the jury's rationale, if possible. If they're a bunch of inarticulate morons, well, that's interesting, too.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SusanV:
Pete, where do you see a fuckup?<hr></blockquote>Sorry. I can see where I was oblique at best.Doug Keefer, a juror who plans to write a book about the Malvo trial, said the jury made the right choice.Of course he *has* to say that, the alternative being admitting to a grievous error.

Testy Copy Editors

High and mighty

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links