The Hanged Juror: Recent Comments

Comment on South Carolina v Rye--This Juror is Horrified by Police Thuggery

2010-02-17T16:37:02Z

I saw a couple of hours of the prosecution's cross examination of Mr. Rye, and I was struck by how credible he seemed.
When a prosecutor cross examines a defendant, the defendant almost always looks pretty bad. This was not the case with the SC v. Rye case and I think that the right decision was to exonerate the defendant.

Comment on Criminal Justice—Ron Killings and a Child Treated “Like Nothing”

2010-02-14T20:47:28Z

Mike, your points are well taken. I agree, and I see now that I need to revise my comments in part and clarify the rest. Thanks.

Comment on Criminal Justice—Ron Killings and a Child Treated “Like Nothing”

2010-02-14T17:27:17Z

I'd like to know what states prohibit the use of hands free devices while talking on the phone? It may not have been appropriate to be in a private conversation at that moment but i don't think that is criminal. Since he was found not to have alcohol in his system the judge determined the bottles were not evidence in the prosecution of reckless homicide charges. I'm sure they will be evidence in the trial for the pending tampering with evidence charges. And they should probably add perjury charges since if he did tamper with evidence then he lied on the stand when he said he removed nothing from his car. You may not believe the results of the breath test but that's not evidence. Otherwise they could have gotten half the country to testify at the OJ trial because we believed he was guilty.

Comment on Criminal Justice—Ron Killings and a Child Treated “Like Nothing”

2010-02-12T15:50:10Z

Cathy and Polly, you have got to be joking. What's wrong with a police officer engaging in a private conversation while on the job? Even office workers aren't supposed to be making personal calls or receiving them on company time. A police officer is engaged in public safety work, so his time is never private while he's on the job. As for making calls in the car, I noted that it isn't illegal in TN, but it is where I live. Worse yet, the idea that a police officer would attempt to destroy evidence at the scene of an accident is appalling. It's also illegal, and he's under indictment for that act. In addition, the problem was that instead of immediately rendering assistance to the victim, he first threw two empty bottles away. Yes, I know he supposedly passed a blood alcohol test, but I question the validity of the test. Please read my previous two posts on this trial. Finally, I agree that in most instances people engaged in public service ought not to be tried for crimes--but not all. If a police officer engages in inappropriate and possibly illegal activity and then becomes involved in an incident that causes an innocent death, that officer should not be able to hide behind his badge.

Comment on Criminal Justice—Ron Killings and a Child Treated “Like Nothing”

2010-02-12T14:27:28Z

There was no alcohol found in his system, as announced by the DA, so it wasn't relevant.The judge wouldn't allow that to be used as evidence since he was alocohol free!! The personal call from the female officer had no more effect than the fact that he answered his phone and it is not established that the female officer is his girlfriend. We all drive while talking on the phone or combing our hair or drinking or speeding!!! Get over yourself. Until you are perfect don't judge others or spread rumors. You wouldn't want someone doing that about you. It was a horrible, tragic accident. He will have to live with that the rest of his life.

Comment on Criminal Justice—Ron Killings and a Child Treated “Like Nothing”

2010-02-11T21:21:38Z

I really don't see how the liquor bottles are that relevant to what happened in the big picture since he was found not to have been drinking at the time. It sounds like the event would have happened anyway. TruTV repeatedly put up the text banner that said he had not been drinking before the accident.

Comment on South Carolina v Rye--This Juror is Horrified by Police Thuggery

2010-01-25T19:17:12Z

It is about the cats as much as the rest of the evidence. Serial killers have been known to harm pets of neighbors as young adults .(state of mind)And would you like your daughter to be in the middle of a divorce with this copwhere he could loose half of his pension? I wouldnt sleep at night.

Comment on South Carolina v Rye—Finders of fact find something very wrong in their neighborhood

2010-01-20T22:15:47Z

Sorry but I still maintain & ALWAYS will that THIS jury took too long to come back w/ a NG verdict. In other cases I can understand over 5 hours, however, NOT in this case.

As a matter of fact, IMO this case NEVER EVEN SHOULD HAVE WENT TO TRIAL in the 1st place & that the prosecution should be investigated for even bringing the case to trail AT ALL.

Comment on South Carolina v Rye—Finders of fact find something very wrong in their neighborhood

2010-01-19T14:47:38Z

I think we're actually on the same side on this issue, but you're misunderstanding what I'm complaining about. However, first I have to note that I wasn't referring to the juror's oath, which changes from state to state. I was referring to the judge's instructions to the jury, whcih are repeated to them several times. The judge always tells the jury that he/she alone is the person who determines what the applicable law is; he/she always explains that by swearing the oath each juror is agreeing to be guided by the law as the judge states it.

I have many, many complaints about the jury system in this country. One of them is the problem of judges who misstate the law to the jury. Another is the problem of prosecutors who charge the wrong people with the wrong crimes and then dump the problem in the jury's lap. Both of these problems occurred in the first trial of Mr. Rye. In the second trial, the judge was forced to read the correct laws to the jury about self-defense and defense of habitation. That's why they were able to find him not guilty.

Very few laws per se are problems for juries. The ones I can think of include social and religious beliefs. For example, I suspect that many jurors would refuse to convict a cancer patient of manufacturing drugs if he grew marijuana in his basement for himself and others who also were cancer patients. That's what jury nullification is. However, I also think it's a misnomer to call such a verdict nullification of the law; I think it's really nullification of the prosecutor's charges. If I voted not guilty in such a case, I would not be saying I think it should be legal to grow marijuana; I would be saying a cancer patient is entitled to an exemption from the law.

Comment on South Carolina v Rye—Finders of fact find something very wrong in their neighborhood

2010-01-19T02:55:37Z

The jurrors oath says nothing about following the court’s instructions. The oath states that the juror will “truly try the issues in this case and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence.”

Although it's not encouraged, jury nullification is an important and valid part of the judicial system. No juror imagines that his government would put him in a position where his oath cannot be fulfilled in good conscience. If the juror intended to follow the law at the time he took his oath—and later discovered that he could not—there can be no perjury.