Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 02:52 PM EST |
It could be just a mistake. But that is
exactly why they ask each juror one by one
if that is how they voted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 06:03 PM EST |
I'd really like to read about this.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 06:11 PM EST |
http://www.wral.com/iowa-wrongful-imprisonment-case-ends-in-mistrial/11881300/
"After a week of deliberation, jurors signaled they had verdicts early
Friday afternoon. But once in the courtroom, three women on the 12-person jury
said they didn't agree with the verdict read in court.
It caught Pratt and the attorneys in the case by surprise, with the judge saying
he's never had that happen before. After a private consultation, Pratt declared
a mistrial."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 06:35 PM EST |
I checked a whole bunch of news reports. This one is the has the most
complete report - the exact same wording is in a couple of other places.
There
are several variations which leave out parts.
The Olympian
This was a case I'd been following. I have
an interest in wrongful
convictions, and knew that the two men involved were
suing the police.
That three of the jurors stood up in court and
said that they didn't agree
with the verdict is really interesting. Something
happened.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 15 2012 @ 05:29 PM EST |
The sound of the story makes me think that the women did it deliberately this
way. Perhaps they felt that if they kept deliberating jurors might object to how
they deliberate and get them kicked off, with the result a finding for the
defendant instead of a mistrial.
If that is the case, the judge should find them in the clkink and toss them in
jail for a while.
Mouse the Lucky Dog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|