Thoughts on Jose Padilla Verdict

I was out of town today and missed the verdict. Since getting home, the news is all about the miners in Utah. So without benefit of having seen live coverage or later analysis, first let me say I agree with TChris:
Whether or not the verdict is correct, the prosecution proves that violations of the law can be addressed in criminal courts. It was never necessary to treat Padilla as an "enemy combatant" or to attempt to deny his right to a jury and to all the other rights that should attend a criminal prosecution.
Now, let me add: I'm dismayed that a jury would come back with a guilty verdict after a day and a half of deliberation in a trial where the evidence took three months to present.
It took 12 Miami-Dade jurors just 11 hours to reach their unanimous verdicts, despite a complex body of evidence that included hundreds of FBI phone wiretaps introduced during the three-month federal trial.
It takes longer than that to comprehend the jury instructions. The instructions in Padilla's case were 42 pages long and are available here (pdf). The jury's job is to determine whether the government has proved each and every element of the charged crimes against each defendant. The elements of the crimes are contained in the jury instructions. They are to apply the law as given in the instructions to the evidence presented at trial.
More...
I doubt this jury bothered to review the evidence or the instructions. They didn't have time in a day and a half. It sounds to me like they took a straw vote shortly after picking a foreman and all were in agreement, so they went right to the verdict forms. I think they went on their gut feeling and emotion, not on the evidence or the law as instructed.
While I find the speed of the verdict abnormal and a dereliction of the jury's duty to review the evidence presented during the trial, it was probably predictable. This is a jury that coordinated their outfits in patriotic red, white and blue for the 4th of July. What more of a signal did you need? As Lew Koch at Firedoglake wrote at the time, I didn't think the defense had a chance after that.
Bottom line: I think returning a guilty verdict in a three month trial after a day and a half makes a mockery of the legal system.
Update: I'm not sure what to make of this from the New York Times:
But one juror, who asked that her name not be used, said later in a telephone interview that she had all but made up her mind before deliberations began. “We had to be sure,” the juror said in Spanish. “We wanted to make sure we went through all the evidence. But the evidence was strong, and we all agreed on that.”
Why was she interviewed in Spanish? Was she not fluent in English? If not, how much of the trial evidence did she understand?
As for a juror making their mind up before deliberations, that's a no-no. They can't begin to deliberate until after they've heard closing arguments and more importantly, the Judge's instructions on how to apply the law.
| < Michael Vick's Choice | Friday Bits and Pieces and Open Thread > |
Poll
Votes: 24
Results
|
Other Polls





