Skip to comments.Judge boots problem juror in Fla. terrorism case
Posted on 05/05/2009 8:28:39 AM PDT by SmithL
MIAMI (AP) -- An uncooperative juror has been replaced on the panel in Miami deliberating the case of six men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and attack FBI offices.
. . .U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard said Tuesday the juror had violated her duty by refusing to deliberate and casting doubt on the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard asked the juror, a black woman whose name has not been made public, to come to the courtroom to answer questions about her willingness to follow the law and apply it to the evidence in the case after fellow jurors accused the woman of refusing to deliberate. The incident caused the second, unrelated delay in deliberations, which began on April 27.http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1032401.html
"Houston, we have a problem."
the juror, a black woman
waiting for the racism charge.....
I don’t get it.
Is this the group that Geraldo Rivera claimed were entrapped by the government? That an inside agent was behind the entire plot? Or was that a different Florida terrorist group?
Isn’t “casting doubt on the law” what jury nullification is? Not to say that it was warranted in this instance, because I don’t know what the trial was.
From UPI 2/18/09 article:
The men were arrested in June 2006 and charged with conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida.
Prosecutors say the group’s leader, Narseal Batiste, 34, sought an alliance with al-Qaida to stage major terror attacks in the United States.
All six of the defendants are construction laborers.
The jury for the new trial, which took three weeks to select, is comprised of four Hispanics, four blacks, three non-Hispanic whites and one juror of Iranian descent
And our Dear Leader doesn’t expect the same thing to happen when Gitmo terrorists are tried in US courts? If you believe that I have a bridge I’d like to talk to you about.
I haven’t heard the evidence in this case so I won’t even attempt to judge the guilt or innocence of the defendants, but this is beginning to look like a case of jury nullification. When a juror “casts doubt” on the law supposedly broken that juror is (hopefully) acting in response to his/her conscience. That’s the way it’s supposed to be but you’ll find precious few judges who will approve.
Another reason why we can not try terrorists in domestic courts with any assurance that justice will be done.
“Jury Nullification” -— just like the OJ Jury, will happen frequently.
When a juror casts doubt on the law supposedly broken that juror is (hopefully) acting in response to his/her conscience.
LOL! She is acting in accord with her race.
Jurors have the absolute right to judge the LAW as well as the Fact in Controversy.
John Jay our first Supreme Court Justice
I might add that nearly Every Supreme Court Justice has said the same thing.
also see William Penn
I agree to a point.
I also think that the OJ Jury was a disgrace.
Where terrorism is concerned, the risk of “Jury Nullification” as well as the release of intelligence information in the trial, are reasons to go with Military Tribunals for those accused of treason, terrorism or any similar “crime”.
But she’s not trying to even deliberate this case, this isn’t jury nullification, it’s inappropriate bias toward the defendants.
Maybe I am completely wrong, but this reminds me of the OJ syndrome.
And.. also of the Duke LaCrosse syndrome, and all the other black criminals who are heroes in the minds of all too many black people. If the victim is perceived as “whitey”, it is likely that there will be a black bigot on the jury.
My prediction is that they are going to reap what they have sown.
I’ve got no problem with jury nullification. However, it seems to me that it should occur only after deliberation, and she should be trying to convice the other jurors to follow her thought processes, not whine about “negativity”.
When you are acting negatively, that is what you should cheerfully expect to get from others.
so she is accused of bias. what jury is not biased????
if you believe the law is WRONG, you must not find guilty. It dont mater what teh laws says, it matters if it is right or not. that is the nice thing about the jury system. non-lawyers can decide if the law is good or not.
this is a right we have as jurors. most folks are not aware of this.
lets say the hate crime law is passed, and you get on a jury for a hate crime. if you dont belive in hate crimes (un-Constitutional) then you should find them not guilty, even if they did exactly what the prosecuter says they did.
if the law is bad, you have an obligation to stike it down in that case
the people must be involved to stop judical and prosecutor abuse of the Constitution.
when you are on the jury, you must uphold the Constitution first, not some laws passed by politicans or activist judges.
No judge has the right to remove a juror based on that jurors belief that the LAW IS WRONG. this judge should be kicked off the bench.
We finally put a guy molesting his own kids back on the street because of it.