Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: MizSterious
I usually avoid reading the tripe from CTV or LKL but this caught my eye and I was wondering if you know anything about this.

KING: Is it encouraging, Jo-Ellan, that they haven't said anything to the judge like, it's hopeless.

DIMITRIUS: Oh, I think so. But I think probably, towards the end of this week, it may become that way, at which point what the judge will do is to issue what they call an Allen charge, which is basically saying to these folks, look, folks. You've been good jurors, you've been conscientious. But we need to have a unanimous verdict.

And it's basically an order that he gives to them. And it's like the last minute.

GERAGOS: In California, there's just a raging controversy, because the Allen charge -- which you can use in federal court, which says, we've wasted enough time and energy on this case, and we don't want to do it again -- has been declared disfavored in California.

But there's some recent cases where there's a 11 to one or 10 to two splits, where judges have removed people here in California. And the courts of appeal have been fighting this out.

There's a recent Supreme Court case as to how far ...

KING: And remove people from the jury?

GERAGOS: ... from the jury. I mean, there's been -- there have been cases recently, within the last six months, that have been decided at the appellate level here, that tells to judges, you have to be very careful if you remove one of those hold-out jurors.

Btw, anyone is free to answer my post.

67 posted on 08/21/2002 8:32:10 AM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Krodg; Henrietta
I had seen some folks talking about this on another board, and I think it's a very real danger. But I wonder if it's also good material to use on appeal? I really do not trust Judge Mudd to be "fair and impartial" having watched how he's handled the case thus far.
70 posted on 08/21/2002 8:35:21 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Krodg
Certainly I can't be reading that right. If you don't like the result of a 10 to 2 jury you can just remove the two and say you have a verdict? Why not just say verdict is decided by a 9 to 3 majority or something to start with?
71 posted on 08/21/2002 8:36:56 AM PDT by clearvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Krodg; MizSterious
That is absolutely astounding. Goes against every reason a jury of one's peers is supposed to exist in the first place! I'm flabbergasted. Absolutely bumfuzzled, I tell ya.
83 posted on 08/21/2002 8:47:56 AM PDT by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Krodg
Oh, great, so if the jury isn't heading where the judge wants, he can just stack the jury??? Oh, our society is headed to hell in a handbasket when judges are allowed to throw out jurors who vote their conscience...
90 posted on 08/21/2002 8:53:25 AM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson