« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Attorneys in Stevens' Trial Called Back to Court Over Jury Questions
The jury in the trial of Sen. Ted Stevens sent three more notes to Judge Emmet Sullivan today, one of which specifically asked the judge to "please clarify the liability cost as it is not readily clear in Senate regulations," The Hill reports.
After receiving the notes, Sullivan sent the jurors to lunch early and asked attorneys from the case to return to court this afternoon for a bench conference to discuss how to instruct the jury.
From The Hill:
Sullivan proposed telling the jurors that the financial disclosure forms require "the filer to disclose the amount of liabilities in excess of $10,000 that were owed by the filer in any point in time during the calendar year." But Robert Cary, Stevens's defense lawyer, called the statement an "oversimplification" and asked to give the jurors a more elaborate explanation.
Today is only the first full day of deliberations for the jury, who were given instructions yesterday morning.
Late update: It looks like one of the jurors may be dismissed for "disruptive, rude and violent" behavior, the AP reports. We'll keep you updated as we hear more.
Late update. . . 2:33 pm: More details are emerging on the "violent" juror. The Hill describes her as a "middle-aged. . bookkeeper for the D.C. National Guard." According to Politico, one of the jury's notes to Sullivan says the woman "has had violent outbursts with other jurors and that's not helping anyone. She is not following the laws and rules that were stipulated."
Late update. . . 2:56pm: After discussing with attorneys from both sides, it doesn't look like the "violent" juror won't be going anywhere.
From the AP:
Worried about disrupting the process, Sullivan opted not to remove the woman. He spoke with jurors, told them how important their job was, urged them to be civil and sent them back to continue deliberating.
Late update. . .6:29pm: The Washington Post has a copy of the note sent from the jury to Sullivan requestion that juror #9 be removed. Read it here.
Josh
Zachary
Well, what's the substance of this violent, disruptive juror's outbursts?
Is she, perchance, threatening to bite other jurors like an Alaskan mink?
October 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Violent outbursts"?
"...not following the rules and laws"??
Well, it sounds like Sen. Stevens is actually being tried by a jury of his peers!
October 23, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are we to make of this?
My earlier guess was that the jury had already started to vote on counts, and that they stress they reported to the judge was caused by a deadlock.
Given this new information, that certainly does not seem to be the case. Considering the jury's requests for clarification about the financial disclosure forms, it seems clear they have not yet gone over the evidence for each of the counts, let alone gotten to the point of a deadlocked jury.
So why is this single juror so angry? It would appear as though this single juror is having violent tirades at the simple prospect of discussing the evidence.
This suggests to me that this juror has had enough and wants to Go Home NOW. Perhaps wondering what the hell the rest are messing about with when the evidence is so clear. For whatever reason, this juror is decided on the counts, is in a bad mental place, and suffering from a very strong case of go-home-itis.
The rest of the jury wants to take the responsible course and review each charge. A slow process, one that with each passing minute further and further fuels the ire of the fed up juror who just wants to go home.
My take is that this is Not good news for Stevens. Given that she's a bookkeeper, given that she's from the District, she probably wants to convict.
Well, that's my guess. Anyone else?
October 23, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double negative much? I'm going to assume this means she's there to stay.
October 23, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this was how she put it.
October 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. If ultimate mistrial here, can prosecutor's evidence excluded in this trial on grounds of prejudicial untimely disclosure be admitted in a subsequent retrial where the prejudice evaporated with time? If so, Stevens should wake up and plead out.
October 23, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. If ultimate mistrial here, can prosecutor's evidence excluded in this trial on grounds of prejudicial untimely disclosure be admitted in a subsequent retrial where the prejudice evaporated with time? If so, Stevens should wake up and plead out.
October 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing that she's having these outbursts means that other members of the jury do not agree with her on a verdict and that she has failed to persuade them. I'm also guessing that anyone having "violent outbursts" in jury deliberations is not going to be convinced she is wrong. How long does it usually take to decide that a jury is hung?
October 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stevens is like many white collar defendants. Being convicted, even if there is no jail time, is ruinous. It makes little difference to him what he is convicted of, even if it's a misdemeanor. A conviction of any kind kills him politically and destroys what's left of his reputation.
October 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like a ploy to create a hook for the verdict to be overturned, should it go against Stevens.
October 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This woman is actually a distant relative of Henry Fonda.She is recreating 12 Angry Men.This May take a couple of days, but she`s trying to turn the jury around.
October 23, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hulk Smash jury! :)
John
October 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe with all the wrongs that occur in the Republican party I find myself a bit paranoid at times . . . consequently my first thought was is this some sort of ploy to create a mis-trial?
Surely we wouldn't have to worry about something like that, would we?
October 23, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Number Nine, number nine...
She works for the National Guard. She may be vehemently opposed to convicting Stevens.
Insufficient data.
However, there's that... number nine, number nine.
Brings me back.
October 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another mess -- Juror No. 4 is missing!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/stevens.trial/index.html
October 24, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Generally, it would be error for the judge to remove a juror for not getting along with fellow jurors. Otherwise a "unanimous" verdict would not really BE unanimous. The majority would just kick off the dissenter. The judge could be more likely to kick off a juror who is guilty of misconduct, like making a noose out of a paperclip during the trial, talking to others about the case, signing a book deal that pays more if he is convicted/found innocent. It is like reading tea leaves to try to figure out which way the majority is leaning based on the facts that are in the story. It would be different if one of the notes asked, "How do you spell guilty as sin?" Sounds like it may be some time before a verdict is reached, not a good sign for the prosecution where a hung jury will be viewed as a win by the defense.
October 24, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink