Two Jackson Jurors Regret Acquittal

[Kerrytravelers]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/jackson_jurors;_ylt=AkNX3pQT1tjwv2vRuoGKqLiZGA4B;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Two Jackson Jurors Regret Acquittal

1 hour, 41 minutes ago



Two of the jurors who voted to acquit singer Michael Jackson of child molestation and other charges say they regret their decisions.

Jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook, who both have pending book deals, planned to appear Monday night on the new MSNBC show "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct."

In a preview shown Monday on NBC's "Today," Cosby asked Cook if the other jurors will be angry with her.

"They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They're the ones that let a pedophile go," responded Cook, 79.

<snip>

Explaining the turnaround by Cook and Hultman, Larry Garrison, who is working with both on their separate books and a combined television movie, said all the jurors "had an agreement (to be united) and then basically when they went on 'Larry King Live,' both Eleanor and Ray couldn't tolerate what was going on anymore. They said, 'Enough is enough.'"

<snip>

----------------

Well, glad to see the jury system working... :eyes:

This is nuts. As a juror, you are compelled to vote your conscience. In the end, if the jury can't come to a decision, we do have a hung jury option and the chance to try the case again.

Of course, we do have a book and movie deal, so nad press is better than no press...

[Squatch]

1. Untrue

"As a juror, you are compelled to vote your conscience."

A juror must be fair and impartial and able to make decisions free of any bias or prejudice. Jurors are charged with carefully listening to and evaluating the evidence presented in the case. The jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant is or is not guilty of the offense alleged.

A consience is a bias and prejudice.

[Kerrytravelers]

7. What I meant was, when sitting in a jury, you're suppose to

listen to every thing and weigh the evidence, we all agree to that. I describe it as listening to your conscience about what the evidence is telling you. I never ment to imply bias and prejudice.

[the other one]

9. Yes it is true.

Whereas a judge will instruct a jury to weigh the evidence and judge wether or not a crime has been committed, there is no law that deprives a jury from excercising Jury Nullification, i.e. choosing to find a person Not Guilty because the law is fundamentally unsound. A judge may even warn a jury against jury nullification BUT in the end the jury is free to hand down whatever verdict it chooses based on whatever reasoning it chooses. A judge can reverse a guilty verdict, but may not reverse a not-guilty verdict.

The people of america could take this country back by practicing jury nullification, by only finding people guilty of crimes that are worth being found guilty of. This would probably destroy the plea bargain system, because defendents would have a greater degree of faith in a jury of their peers if that jury was not bound by any restrictions save judging the accused in relation to society and not a strict reading of the law.

[MaineDem]

2. Well... isn't this interesting?

A little too late.

This story is just as bizarre as the case was.

[Goldmund]

3. Whorin' for book sales.

[sendero]

17. Exactly..

.... and if I were king for a day, it would be against the law to discuss your experiences as a juror on a specific case.

These people should shut up. I felt with what limited info I had that Jackson was probably guilty, but the verdict has been rendered and coming back now with a new story is shameful.

Jackasses.

[Kraklen]

4. The jury system did work.

The jury was presented all of the accurate, valid evidence (which wasn't much for the prosecution), and they all voted unanimously to acquit.

They're opinions months afterwards (which is tainted with heresay, bias, speculation, prejudice, etc.) is irrelevant.

[Kerrytravelers]

8. This paragraph got my attention.

Hultman, 62, told Cosby he was upset with the way other jurors approached the case: "The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn't take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there."

NOw, personally, I have no idea whether MJ is guilty or not since I heard none of the evidence (as no cameras were allowed in the courtroom.) When I read this, I took it to mean that many of the jurors were either star-struck or already had their mind made up.

Basically, it seems that this guy thought he was guilty because of the evidence that was there, but that he felt many of the other jurors had blinders on to the evidence and he just voted with them.


Who knows what was going on? I just found this artlice on Yahoo!'s front page news and it got my attention.

[Kraklen]

12. No cameras in the courtroom is irrelevant.

All of the testimony and evidence was reported ad nauseum, they even did a recreation for crying out loud. There certainly wasn't important evidence that the media didn't report.

As for what's going on, it's pretty clear to me that this guy's trying to capitalize.

[Kerrytravelers]

15. Yep, it sure was ad nauseum.

I am just wary of the corporate media's ability to report since it was decided by many in the media that MJ was guilty- especially on CourtTV.

From my understanding, the recreation was on E! Entertainment television. I question to ability to be factual over the ability to be entertaining on aq channel that specializes in sensationalism.

I certianly think these people are trying to capitalize, but they are also giving the talking heads a total distraction from the true concerns of the American people.

[atreides1]

5. I Wonder????

How much of the money they make from this will be given to groups that protect children?

I bet at this moment, neither of these "good" people plan to give any money to anyone but themselves.

[leetrisck]

6. This crap is ridiculous - wish Jackson would sue

their asses off but he won't. Think the prosecutor should be charged with malicious prosecution.

[xultar]

10. WTF Jackson should SUE their ass.

[Kerrytravelers]

11. By posting this story, I didn't mean to apply MJ was guilty.

I just find it interesting that after the trial is over, after all the rumors since the 1994 investigation, now suddenly two jurors come out and say... well, maybe he was guilty... that was what the trial was about. This is just shameless book/movie plugging and will stir up even more distractions for the talking heads.

I hope I'm wrong about the talking head distraction, although you know Jon Stweart is gonna have fun with this one.

[AndyTiedye]

13. The Motivation for Their Turnaround Is Obviou$$$$$$$$$$$$

They did vote their consciences. Then they got home and tried to cash in. A conversation like this would have ensued:

Juror: With all this publicity, there surely ought to be some money in it for me.

Garrison: YOU ACQUITTED HIM, YOU IDIOTS! How can I sell a story of
all the juicy goings on at MJ's place if you say it never happened?
Now the press has gone home disappointed that they don't get photo
ops of MJ in jail, and nobody is interested anymore.

Juror: I had no idea. What can I do?

Garrison: Say you changed your mind, that you really think he's guilty
and the other jurors bullied you. We can get the press back if we give
them something, anything.

Juror: I can still have my book and my movie then?

[daleo]

14. It's kind of late to change their minds.

I think they may feel the potential book market will be larger this way, though.

[bluestateguy]

16. Just a couple of old farts looking for their 15 minutes of fame

I guess they and their agents decided that being flip flop jurors was the best way to profit from being on a jury.

[4_Legs_Good]

18. F*cking rediculous!!! If you have "reasonable doubts" you should bring

them up in the deliberation room, not 2 months after the fact.

If you really think he was guilty, then it's YOU and not the other jurors who let the pedaphile go.

Idiocy, utterly.

david