The San Francisco Chronicle today has a feature on jury consultants, focusing on Howard Varinsky, who assisted the prosecution in choosing the Martha Stewart jury and is doing the same in the Scott Peterson trial, and Jo Ellen Dimitrius, who worked for the defense in the O.J. trial and is now helping Scott Peterson's defense team. Ms. Dimitrius helped the prosecution in the case against David Westerfield, sentenced to death for killing six year old Danielle Van Dam, and has been signed by the prosecution to help pick the Kobe Bryant jury.

What are they looking for in Peterson jurors?

He wants consensus-oriented individuals who, in the end, will decide that circumstantial evidence is all that's needed to bring a verdict of guilt. She's looking for strong-willed people who might view authorities with suspicion and remain open to the idea that Laci Peterson died at the hands of an unknown assailant.

Dimitrius concedes that she has the tougher job in the Peterson case, due to the extensive pre-judgment of guilt in his case. But, we think in almost all cases, this is what really goes on:

No matter how many times prospective jurors are told a defendant is innocent until proved guilty, there are many who will come in with preconceived notions, particularly in a high-profile criminal case. "A lot of people still think this person would not be sitting in that chair if the police and prosecution didn't really think he did it,'' said Beth Bonora, a jury consultant based in San Francisco.

Peter McEntegart, one of the jurors in the Tyco case, is a reporter for Sports Illustrated Magazine. In the new issue of Time Magazine, he criticizes the prosecution for spending too much time focusing on Kozlowski and Swartz's excessive lifestyle:

Juror Peter McEntegart, a reporter for Time Inc.'s Sports Illustrated, said that while the prosecutors provided "vivid accounts and video of the now famous $2 million bash ... and of his over-the-top purchases of items like $6,000 shower curtains," the jury spent little time on the excesses of Kozlowski and former chief financial officer Mark H. Swartz.

"Much of what these two men did might have been unseemly, even unethical _ but illegal beyond a reasonable doubt? Not to us," McEntegart wrote. "Instead, several jury members expressed disgust that the prosecution has wasted our time on all this."

McEntegart also said that Juror no. 4 was coming around to a guilty vote and that the jury was close to a full verdict when the mistrial was declared:

McEntegart said that Ruth Jordan, the juror who received the letter after being publicly identified by The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, "seemed to be at war with herself. Whenever she reached the precipice of a guilty vote on any count, she recoiled as if she had touched a hot stove." But he said Jordan eventually told her fellow jurors she had had a change of heart, and by Thursday afternoon the panel "had reached a strong consensus for guilty verdicts on the final two counts, conspiracy and securities fraud." He said the jury was close to a verdict when the mistrial was declared.

A Texas jury has found Deanna Laney not guilty by reason of insanity in the stoning deaths of her two children and maiming of a third. What's the difference between Ms. Laney and Andrea Yates? None that we can see. Both were deeply religious, both home-schooled their children. Yates' lawyer, George Parnum, explains the similarities here.

What's the difference in their cases? First, Deanna Laney was tried by a Tyler, Texas jury that was not qualified as a death-penalty jury because the state didn't seek the death penalty in her case. Andrea Yates' jury was a death-qualified jury. Studies show that death qualified juries are more likely to convict in the guilt phase. We think it's likely death qualified jurors are also less likely to find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.

The second difference in the cases is that in the Laney case, all of the experts (those retained by the prosecution, defense and judge) agreed that Ms. Laney was insane. In the Yates case, the prosecution's expert did not agree with the insanity finding. It's interesting that the prosecution used the same expert in both cases, psychiatrist Park Dietz.

Call it what you want, but both women were delusional and likely insane. We fail to see any difference between their cases. One goes to jail for life. One goes to a mental hospital until such time as medical doctors determine she's no longer insane. One has a chance at treatment and recovery, one doesn't.

Why do people make up crimes? Police now say Wisconsin college student Audrey Seiler fabricated her story about being abducted at knifepoint. The police now have evidence showing "she researched places to hide and bought rope and duct tape to make it look like an abduction.

But this is not just an attention-seeking, victimless caper. Seiler aided in the drawing of a composite sketch of the man she claimed kidnapped her.

The sketch shows a clean-shaven white man with a long chin in a stocking cap. A caption on the sketch describes the man as in his late 20s to early 30s, stocky and about 5 feet 10.

What would have happened if the police had been less dilgent in Seiler's case? What if her sketch had resulted in an arrest and she then identified the man as her kidnapper? He would have been charged, and quite possibly, wrongfully convicted.

Police have not yet determined whether Seiler will be charged with a crime.

Pop singer Michael Jackson has been presented with a humanitarian award in Washington, DC for his efforts in fighting AIDS in Africa. All of the British papers are reporting it--here, we mostly see articles about the grand jury investigation into allegations of child molestation. We prefer the British articles:

Michael Jackson has been honoured in Washington DC for his work fighting Aids in Africa. Apparently unmoved by the Los Angeles grand jury currently hearing evidence in his child molestation case, Jackson watched a children's choir as they performed his hit 'Heal the World' and gathered them on his lap, embracing other children, patting their heads and hugging them.

....During his three days in Washington, Jackson, dressed in a spangled jacket and silver-sequinned boots, toured the halls of the Capitol and met with members of Congress. Though he said little, he attracted hordes of reporters and was trailed by fans, enthusiastic maintenance workers and congressional staffers using their camera phones to take photographs. "It set Capitol Hill on fire", said Leon Buck, chief of staff to US Republican Sheila Jackson Lee, who helped arrange Jackson's visit. One staffer even fainted in the hubbub, Buck said.

by TChris

The prosecution of Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, former executives of Tyco accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the corporation, has ended in a mistrial. TalkLeft's most recent coverage of jury deliberations can be found here.

The infamous juror number four, who may have been the lone holdout for acquittal, reportedly received a "coercive letter" within the last day, prompting the judge to grant the latest in a series of mistrial motions.

The district attorney's office said that it will seek a retrial.

Martha Stewart's lawyers filed a motion for a new trial today. The chief ground is that a juror lied about a prior assault arrest.

Stewart lawyer Robert Morvillo said in papers filed in federal court that he would have sought to strike juror Chappell Hartridge had he known about his past. "These facts, in and of themselves, establish that Ms. Stewart is entitled to a new trial," Morvillo wrote. The papers also accused Hartridge of seeking money for post-trial interviews. On the day of the guilty verdict, the juror said publicly that he believed the decision was "a victory for the little guys."

Stewart's lawyers said Hartridge was arrested in 1997 after a woman with whom he was living filed an assault complaint. They said Hartridge spent several days in jail before the woman withdrew her complaint because she could not miss work to attend court. In a juror questionnaire, Hartridge claimed he had never been in court other than for a minor traffic violation, the defense lawyers said. The defense also said that Hartridge lied on his jury questionnaire by omitting that he has been sued at least three times. It said he also lied by not disclosing that he was once accused of stealing from a Little League group.

[comments now closed]

by TChris

As jury deliberations in the Tyco trial enter their tenth day (previously discussed here), the public's focus has been less on the outcome than on the conduct of juror number four. Juror four appears to be holding out for a particular verdict, although one note that the jury gave to the judge suggests that the other jurors "do not all have the same views of guilt or innocence." Some courtroom observers believe that juror four flashed an "OK" sign at the defense a few days ago, while others didn't see it. Now the juror can't brush her hair without someone interpreting her curled fingers as another "OK."

The defense continues to move for a mistrial on the theory that the jury has hung. On Tuesday, the defense added that juror four has been subjected to "venomous and just outrageous statements" in online chat rooms. If juror four knew about the online comments, she might feel coerced to change her vote, but there is no indication that she knows her failure to join with the majority has provoked such animosity, so the judge is still waiting to see whether a verdict will be rendered.

The animosity is misplaced. No matter how overwhelming the evidence may appear, it is up to each individual juror to decide whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors should listen to each other respectfully and should consider the views of other jurors, but the parties are entitled to the best individual judgment that each juror can provide. If juror four hasn't been persuaded to change her vote after listening to the other jurors, she should apply the law to the facts as she sees them. That's what her oath as a juror requires her to do.

Being a juror isn't easy, and no juror deserves to be attacked simply because members of the public disagree with her view of the evidence. If the jury hangs and another six month trial ensues, that's the way the system works. Attacking a juror for doing what she thinks is right can only discourage other members of the community from serving on juries in the future -- or from bringing their independent judgment to the juries upon which they serve.

This is every lawyer's nightmare in a high profile case.

Scott Peterson's lawyers received a call from an unidentified tipster who reported that s/he had been on a bus trip with a potential juror who had made it past the first few rounds of questioning in the case, and that the juror had bragged about getting on the jury, and said that Scott Peterson was "guilty as hell" and that he would "get what's due him."

During questioning by the Judge today, the juror admitted taking the bus trip but denied making the comments. The Judge ordered the unidentified tipster to come to court on May 10 and testify. We're a little curious as to how the Court can enforce the order if no one knows the name of the tipster. On May 11, the juror will report back to court and learn if she is still on the jury.

Outside court, Geragos praised the tipster and said the alleged stealth juror "wasn't the first and won't be the last." "It's extremely distressing to anyone connected to the criminal justice system to think that anyone would lie their way onto a jury in order to execute someone," Geragos said.

The San Francisco Chronicle has more:

People with ulterior motives are called stealth jurors, and their tactics to get onto panels are becoming more pervasive in high-profile cases, according to legal consultants. "We are seeing it more and more," said Rich Matthews of Decision Analysis, a consulting firm in San Francisco. "People have hidden agendas - some moral, others for financial reasons."

Often jurors are offered book and movie deals while serving on big cases. Others are so consumed with meting out their version of justice that they forget to keep an open mind. He said it was rare for a whistle-blower from outside the jury to come forward as the tipster did in this case. The worst part, according to Matthews, is there are no absolute telltale signs to ferreting out these stealth jurors, just vague clues.

by TChris

It would be nice to believe that, at this point in our nation's history, we have put cross burning behind us. Sadly, two teenagers have been arrested in Arlington, Washington for setting fire to a cross in the yard of an African American pastor.

He moved his family to an upscale neighborhood in Arlington to give his seven kids a safe place to live. "We live here for the community, for the awesome environment, but something like this happens, it causes you to wonder 'where we're going?'" said [Pastor Jason] Martin.

A crowd of 500 people showed support for Pastor Martin by marching against racism Saturday.

The Prosecutor asked for six months. The max was three years, nine months. The Judge sentenced Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien to probation--and 1,000 hours of community service--for his fatal hit and run accident.

O'Brien, 68, may be the first Roman Catholic Bishop in U.S. history to be convicted of a felony. He was the head of the Phoenix Diocese.

Judge Stephen A. Gerst said the conviction alone was a significant punishment for a public figure such as O'Brien. "He will bear the quiet glances and whispers of others for the rest of his life," Gerst said.

Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh Has Rights Too . Here's what Roy says the prosecutors have done so far to Rush, without charging him with any crime:

Over the past six months, Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer has: raided drugstores near Rush's home; seized his medical records without going through the required process enacted by the Florida legislature to protect medical privacy; leaked false information to the media that he was about to plead guilty to a felony; threatened to make his medical records public unless he pled guilty to a felony he didn't commit; released to the media confidential letters regarding Rush's situation that he received from my office; and falsely claimed that the Florida Bar and attorney general's office approved of the release.

Roy asks:

So am I wrong to wonder if something is out of whack when the Palm Beach County State Attorney pulls out all the stops in an effort to nail Rush, while giving immunity to the traffickers who supposedly kept him supplied with painkillers, and who, as a result of a deal with the prosecutor, were able to make a six-figure killing selling their "story" to a tabloid?

Roy has a point. We do think Rush is being treated differently than other celebrity drug users who usually slip away into treatment without the cops all over them. It's just hard to work up a lot of sympathy or righteous indignation for him or his predicament. On the other hand, we're 100% behind Roy.