Posted by Mark Jones on 11/07/06 05:41

Mark Jones wrote:
> Citizen Bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:22:17 GMT, "Mark Jones"
>> <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A conviction of a pot grower was recently overturned by a
>>> federal appeals court because a juror was told that she would
>>> get in trouble if she didn't follow the judges instructions exactly.
>>> Here is what one of the appeals court judges had to say:
>>
>>> "Jurors cannot fairly determine the outcome of a case if they
>>> believe they will face 'trouble' for a conclusion they reach as
>>> jurors," said the opinion by Judge Betty Fletcher. "The threat
>>> of punishment works a coercive influence on the jury's
>>> independence."
>>
>> Can you comment on how this affects the ruling in the Kriho case.
>
> If she lied before she was sworn in as a juror, I can see how
> she would be in trouble. It all depends upon the questions that
> were asked of her prior to jury selection. If she always told the
> truth to every question she was asked, it isn't her fault if the
> lawyers or judge failed to ask the right questions.
>
> I wouldn't want to have to decide a case like this because it
> is one of those that sounds like jury nullification, but looks
> like it could have been intentional to throw the trial before
> it even started. This is a tough one, no matter what decision
> is reached.

I read the case history and final outcome and I am glad the the final
ruling was in her favor. In my opinion, the entire selection process
needs to be cleaned up. The only thing that a person should be asked
is if they know any of the court officers involved in the case. The idea
of stacking the jury flies in the face of the idea of an impartial jury.

[Back to original message]