igor2003
Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: barelynangel
Well, stalking tends to be against law. And from what that article states she pretty much stalked this guy and others before settling on him. I am curious how she got the names of the juror and if her son's attorney gave them to her knowing what she wanted them for. I don't think jurors are public knowledge especially private information, because many jurors would be hunted down by freaks who wanted to do them harm for verdicts they came too. With regard to stalking, weren't people recently prosecuted for stalking stars? This is the same concept without the "star" concept.
She offered him drugs. That also is illegal - she was not only carrying and doing the drug but she was attempting to get someone else to do an illegal act -- like mother like son??? So it seems she believes that and her son are above the law and that its okay to break laws to get what she wants. I also say its way to convenient, she just happens to pick this guy out of the jury who happens to have all this dish about himself and he "eventually" spills his guts to her while she is wired. If this woman is willing to go to any lengths to get her son off, and she already resorted to illegal activities to accomplish this, i don't put it past her that she would set this whole thing up and pay this guy to give her this information.
Luckily, as the article says, to reverse a jury verdict is rarely done. I think the defense will actually have to prove what this guy says as being true instead of a guy simply trying to seem cool to some chick he was interested in. The prosecution is not just going to sit by and go oh my you have recordings. The Defense has a lot of work to do to prove that this guy wasn't lying to her to make himself seem cool. I mean they are kinda fucked if he says that he was just bullshitting her because she seemed sooo interested in dirt on the trial and jury. And then, yeah, there is not reason not to retry this guy, there were witnesses and the transcripts of the initial trial may be allowed to be used because it wasn't anything with the evidence or the prosecutor that is being questioned.
It seems that when it comes to breaking the law only her and her son are exempt.
angel
I know that some of this is kind of like splitting hairs, but sometimes splitting hairs is what makes the difference in a court case.
First, "stalking" is defined in different ways. 1 - Following or observing a person persistently and surreptitiously, sometimes done out of obsession or derangement.
2 - When an adult purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows another with the intent of harassing.
3 - Repeatedly harassing or threatening a person through behaviors such as following a person, appearing at a person's residence or workplace, leaving written messages or objects, making harassing phone calls, or vandalizing property; frequently directed at a former intimate partner.
4 - To follow, pursue, place under surveillance, or repeatedly commit acts with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate; and to place a person in reasonable fear of death, serious bodily injury, or emotional harm to that person, their immediate family member(s) or spouse or intimate partner.
The defendants mother was not following any of the jurors for any of those reasons...she was gathering information. This is the same thing a private investigator would be doing, except that she was doing it on her own. But gethering information is totally different than stalking.
As far as her offering him drugs, or carrying drugs, or distributing drugs, the only incriminating thing the article says is that she smoked pot. What it says is, "She was offering me wine, offering to smoke weed," he said. "Offering TO SMOKE WEED" is not the same as offering to GIVE him weed. There is nothing there to say that he didn't already have the weed and she "offered to smoke" it with him...not that she had it herself. So yes, she is apparently guilty of smoking weed, but not in trafficing or holding.
Don't get me wrong, I think the woman's son is probably guilty. But what if he isn't? Doesn't he deserve to have a fair trial with a full jury that is impartial? What if it was you or a loved one that was convicted by that jury...wouldn't you want it redone so that there is no doubt?
Juror names have been a matter of public record in most cases, though there are laws that are being changed. The reason for them being public record is so that all parties concerned can know that the jury wasn't hand picked in some way. I requested a jury trial once for a moving vehicle violation that i didn't agree with. We went to court, and the jury had already been picked! (At the time i lived in a little podunk town of less than 1000 people and to the best of my knowledge I was the only one to ever challenge this particular Chief of Police in court.) Anyway, it turned out that this jury which neither me nor my lawyer had any hand in picking ALL WENT TO THE SAME CHURCH WITH THE JUDGE!!! A prospective witness on my behalf also went to the same church and pointed this out to us and so we had the jury totally dismissed. Anyway, this is the kind of thing that having the jury names as public record is meant to keep from happening.
|
Convict's mother gets dirt on juror - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread