Judge declares mistrial after jurors react to graphic photograph

sacbee.com ^ | October 25, 2002 | AP

[let freedom sing]

Judge declares mistrial after jurors react to graphic photograph Published 12:30 a.m. PDT Friday, SAN DIEGO(AP) - A photograph of a brutally beaten grandmother affected jurors in a murder trial enough for the judge to declare a mistrial.

One juror broke down in tears after seeing the emergency room photo of Emily McAllister, 86, with tubes taped to her nose and mouth, her face swollen and bandages on her body.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

... but he might be innocent, so let's make sure he has a fair chance to prove it, if he can.

He pled innocent by reason of insanity, an admission of committing the act but with extenuating circumstances. It seems to me that these pictures may work in his favor.

[Thumper1960]

You know the Eeeeeeeeeeevvviiilllll weed is more dangerous than fists, a baseball bat or an AR-15.

< /sarcasm >

[let freedom sing]

Ughhhh! Don't scare me like that!

[Viva Le Dissention]

I don't know if CA still has this ridiculous law, but for quite sometime, insanity trials in CA were (are?) handled oddly: If a person chooses to plea "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental defect or whatever, there are actually *two* trials. In the first trial, a plea of not guilty is entered. A defense can be raised at this trial except for mental defect. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty, case over, the guy goes home. If the jury convicts him, a new trial is held to determine whether the prisoner is insane. It can be with the same jury or with a different jury.

So all of that being said, assuming CA's law hasn't changed in the some years since I've known it, if this is the first phase of the trial, it is a straight determination of guilt--his mental capacity has nothing to do with it. But we don't know from this article, but food for thought, at least.

[Britton J Wingfield]

if this person is trying to argue 'not guilty by reason of insanity' that would seem like an admission that he did do it.

True.

The McVeigh trial is a perfect example of when emotional testimony should not be included. The suffering of the survivors was very real, but had absolutely no bearing on McVeigh's guilt or innocence.

[pepsionice]

Seems like its our tax dollars at work...another trial obviously, and the second could well be the same. I think the judge has some kinda problem and needs to sit out in the real world for a while.

[supercat]

The McVeigh trial is a perfect example of when emotional testimony should not be included. The suffering of the survivors was very real, but had absolutely no bearing on McVeigh's guilt or innocence.

Glad we're in agreement. Some people have regarded me as a 'conspiracy nut' for thinking McVeigh was railroaded, but it's a matter of record that the government introduced large amounts of testimony which had no legitimate evidentiary value and yet would tend to significantly prejudice a jury.

A case like the one here is perhaps trickier. If the defendant were arguing that he didn't commit the crime, I would suggest that the photo would be prejudicial while lacking in evidentiary value. Given the defendant's insanity plea, though, that's a harder call. In that case, the exact nature of the crime may have a significant bearing in judging the defendant's mental state at the time it was committed.

[let freedom sing]

I think the judge has some kinda problem and needs to sit out in the real world for a while.

"They don't shock me," the judge said of the photos. "Maybe I've been in this business too long. I've seen a lot worse."

What the judge needs is a refresher in procedure, so the court's time is not wasted by mistrials.

[longtermmemmory]

I have seen the picture game played out in various courtrooms.

In civil cases the Plaintiff's attorney has the pictures blown up reaaaaaly big to let the jury see them real clear. This is done to prejudice the defendant based on deep pockets and sympathy rather than responsibility.

In criminal cases, (money allowing) the picture game is also played with the big pictures. This is used to create shock to cover weak evidence. The pictures never show the defendant standing all bloody over the body. There has to be a proper predicat laid down BEFORE the pictures may be shown.

(ie, witness 1, I saw him hit her and the ambulance came and witness 2 put her in the ambulance. witness 2, I arrive on scene put victim in the ambulance and took her to the hospital where wtness 3 took pictures. Witness 3, I was on duty at the hospital and when witness 2 brought the victim in I took pictures as standard procedure.)

A lawyer must be careful because a sleazy prosecutor or plainff's lawyer will set the pictures down somewhere where the jurrors can continue to have an unobstructed view during all testimony. Usally a nonchalant comment to the bailiff fixes it, if it continues to be pulled, a side bar to the judge is warranted.

[StrictConstructionist]

It is California. The remove "one nation, under God" court, ban as many weapons as possible, let the deranged do what ever they want state. What do you expect?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks for your post. The law may very well still be as you say.

[Jaded]

Bingo.