Not necessarily. Juror was tossed because she made racist statements to the Judge. End of her story. She's done. As for the other juror, someone said he made a racist statement, and he denied doing so. Without further evidence of which is telling the truth, he (unlike her who confessed), can't be proven guilty of making the comment, so he is treated as innocent. So, the judge didn't need to believe him; only to say he couldn't prove him guilty. It is a good call. Innocent until proven guilty is, unfortunately, often laid aside by jurors in favor of the "innocent until proven that we don't like you" approach.
A couple of years ago a juror was tossed because she declared god told her (in a dream)the defendant was innocent regardless of the evidence. The other jurors protested she refused to deliberate.
Interesting. Before accepting/denying (point of perspective) the clam by debunking, I believe someone who had received word from God (assuming the One God of creation) would also understand a path of exoneration would be produced by God, assuming that is what God intended. And if the message from God was to interject with this claim making it a message for all jurors (far different than notification of a condition to an individual) then I believe following the events leading through and after the trial would also become apparent as people looked back on the events, regardless of the other jurors belief in the message.
I have had the privilege of being a defendant (traffic court), a juror (battery with bodily injury) and as an interested party (family member). While I would generally trust a jury, I do not trust the justice/court system. I have seen the corruption first hand. As a juror we acquitted a man charged with battery in what would ordinarily be considered an act of heroism on his part. He saved his inebriated lady friend from being turned into orange goo on a major highway. The lady deputy arrested him because lady friend got a bruise on her wrist when he pulled her out from traffic in the face of a high speed car bearing down on them. One lady juror refused to vote to acquit because she was (presumably) standing up for women. When we went through the facts of the case on step at a time, using the jury instructions, she finally changed her mind. To the other eleven of us it was clear he was innocent. Traffic court is another matter altogether. Guilty until proven innocent. Mexican law.
That brings up a heck of a question, when did the state give its self the ability to declare some crimes as civil suits as a convenient way around due process? I'd ask who allowed it happen but I already know it was the same bunch of political crookes and short sighted fools that always compromise basic rights for fear of seeming unreasonable.
Yep. Do not trust the Criminal Injustice System. I got charged with aggravated assault for pulling a guy off my girlfriend in her own house. He got convicted of domestic violence. In Michigan, what I did was perfectly legal under the Self Defense Act, yet the corrupt prosecutors came after Me anyway. One idiot assistant prosecutor walked up to my attorney and said, "This guy never should have been charged, and I'm not dropping the charges 🙄 " All these people want to do is win to make themselves look good. They don't care about justice.
Its not as much whether she said it as in what context..admittedly worded poorly. But by itself," im standing up for white people" implying you will aquit due to race..certainly a reason to get kicked off. Said in response to another juror saying they will convict regardless of evidence based on defendents race..not so much..racism absolutley can go both ways..imagine reversed roles..juror in room says he is voting to convict regardless of facts because the defendent is black..one juror goes to judge tells that and says shes standing up for black people.. now who is in the wrong... so to me the question is did the other juror(s) really say they were gonna convict based on race alone..if so wrong juror was removed..regardless of who was what race..
@@additudeobxthe judge knows you cant question claims from POC. If there's a dispute between a black person and a white person the black person is automatically telling the truth and the white person is automatically a racist. I let a black friend/coworker (military) live with me for free for almost 6 months, after he kicked my dog down a flight of stairs and broke his femur bone I automatically became a racist and was told I would be charged with a racial attack if I beat the guy up. That changed my entire outlook on racial groups living as one. And because of that I really am a racist. I don't hate anyone but I believe we should all live in separate places.
Some people can lie more convincingly than others telling the truth especially when they've had a lifetime of experience. The pressure of confrontation can make a truth teller nervous and unsettled.
Yep that's why cops are automatically struck from jury selection - every prosecutor Judge & Defense attorney knows they LIE for a living & are TRAINED how to lie convincingly. Example in Police academy their taught after shooting a person while cuffing the shot bleeding out person to constantly YELL & SCREAM STOP RESISTING!!! When witnesses testify they'll say the cop Screamed STOP RESISTING - 1st It's a PTSD response discovered in Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan from soldiers in Fire fights & when debriefing theyed REVERSE many sequences of Events. Police trainers Ex Vets took this PTSD response knowledge to training & taught new cops how to TRICK witnesses without them KNOWING they were being set up for witness testimony later on
I was jury member #12 on a murder trial with two alternates. In our Indiana case the alternates were involved in the deliberations with the other twelve members. Had someone be removed, the alternate would not have to catch up, but during the deliberations the two alternates could not vote.
@@kenbrown2808 That's usually a matter of public record. You can usually look it up if you care to. Or you can arrange with one of the jurors that does deliberate to find out what the result was.
@@robertheinkel6225 'Involved' in, doesn't make sense - otherwise, expand the jury to be (in this case) 14, with 12 votes being the deciding factor. OBSERVING the deliberations though, is entirely different, and a good idea. If an alternate needs to be brought in, first order of the day could be to hear them out for any questions they had arising from the 'main' deliberation points. Then continue.
Steve said "they could both be mistaken I suppose" ... that concept is beyond most people it seems. The idea that someone can say something that is not true and not be lying escapes a lot of people.
So no one can make a mistake or get confused? That's obviously wrong. And the older I get, the more easily I could get confused re memory if there's a lot of data being exchanged, and I admit it.
@@rogergeyer9851no. Scoots was saying it's possible to say something that isn't true & *_not_* be lying. Or in your own words, *_yes,_* someone *_can_* make a mistake or be confused. Sounds like a major shit show of a trial, and nobody should be surprised if this case ends up being retried in couple years.
@@Iceberg86300 His comment is basically a perfect example of this, he basically said that the person said something completely different than what they said.
I was on a very long trial like that once. It wasn't as long, but even with all the work that the judge and attorneys were putting into cutting the unnecessary witnesses out of the process, it was still a month. One of the things I remember was how much weight one side wanted us to put on the fact that one of the witnesses was held in contempt for simply not showing up for a deposition without informing the attorneys and trying to find an alternate date that would work. I'm not sure about the other jurors, but I didn't personally see how that was relevant to the testimony. By the end of it, I hated both sides so much that I would have taken the more than million dollars that was at issue and given it to pretty much anybody else or even just made them watch me light it on fire. But, sometimes that's what being impartial looks like. You don't have to like or respect both parties, just as long as your feelings aren't impacting your judgement to favor one party or the other.
JURY NULLIFICATION DOESNT MATTER WHY YOU WONT VOTE TO CONVICT, THE COURT HAS NO RIGHT TO ASK WHY YOU SAID NOT GUILTY. ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS YOU VOTE GUILTY, THATS "JURY NULLIFICATION" AND ITS THE DAMN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. AMERICA ISNT A DEMOCRACY, NOR IS IT A DICTATORSHIP. WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW, ALL OTHER LAW DERIVES FROM THE CONSTITUTION.
Jurors are allowed to let their feelings impact the judgment. They just need facts to support their feelings. No one is unbiased. Black-and-white issues rarely make it to trial. Usually, the issues at trial are presented as a jumble of competing facts. How much we weigh each fact depends on our emotions. As it should. The first (mythical) jury trial was open and shut. Orestes did kill his mother and her lover in revenge for their murder of his father. But the jury acquitted Orestes believing this was an act of piety. Feelings swayed the jury. The whole purpose of a jury is to place a check on uncaring law.
@@jwrosenbury No, the whole point of a jury is to have a group weighing the evidence to try and get the fairest hearing of the evidence. The feelings get in there because we're talking about humans, not because it's a desired aspect of a jury. Feelings getting in there is a large part of why trials are often times not fair. It's great if you're a pretty white woman with money, and not so much for the rest of us.
@@thesaltyspacecowboy8531This is just ignorant. Jury nullification is a byproduct of the prohibition on being tried for the same offense multiple times and the secrecy of the jury room. It's also something that ensures that we keep trying people for ridiculous things, as the cases that get nullified are the ones most likely to get overturned on appeal. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
If the defendant ends up getting convicted then he should have an easy appeal due to that juror's racist statement that he should be convicted because he's White. But maybe not, considering how corrupt and biased the "just us" system is.
The idea of just removing both, particularly when one proved themselves in the wrong, opens up the possibility of just throwing accusations at a juror who won't agree, just to get them out of the way and get a chance to get a more amenable alternate (even if it means taking yourself out). In strict "he said/she said" scenario, it's probably best to not throw either juror out.
@@VincentLauria6 -- I'm going to suggest civics lessons for you. The President of the United States doesn't control courtroom procedure. (Also, there was absolutely no reason to make a political comment here in this thread.)
I've been on 5 juries in my life. Yes, I saw evidence of racism in some of those deliberations. In each case, the elected foreperson stopped it by saying we were there to discuss the facts of the case and nothing else. That way we were able to agree on a verdict. So, the jury itself has some power, too.
Is there a law against jurors being allowed to be racist though? And who determines what racism is? I think in this case the juror was removed because of what they said to the judge specifically
@@scott_johnson_ So, if a person of a different skin color, an avowed racist, was on a jury in a case you were the defendant in, that would be "good" with you? lol
@@scott_johnson_ what did they say to the judge? And who is they and who's the judge? Am I the plaintiff or the witness or the judge or the jury or just the idiot standing in the corner SUCKING MY THUMB??
I was on a jury where an alternate had to step in on the third day of deliberations; not due to any conflict with other jurors, but to some issue in her personal life. The change was definitely disruptive, but we did eventually reach a verdict.
Things happen. In a stressful deliberation, someone could get sick (like heart attack symptoms, etc). That's why alternates are picked and listen to the trial as part of the jury.
@@rogergeyer9851 This. The judge didn’t say precisely why the juror couldn’t continue, but suggested some medical issue had arisen in her family that was preventing it. No indication whatsoever the juror did anything wrong or failed to do anything right.
I think regardless of who is right or wrong a mistrial or appeal is warranted. Justice can't be served if the jury is focused on things other than the facts of the case.
Then why even have a jury? All juries are focused on things other than the facts of the case. That is inherently part of using people to decide things. You think OJ was acquitted based on facts? The jurors decided based on "I'm not putting OJ away just for killing a couple white people"
Based on everything you see going on in America right now you still believe in legal fiction? The only thing that matters in the court room is a kangaroo court against the accused. Anything else is legal fiction.
@@lrmackmcbride7498I believe they are guilty as well. When they're guilty it's just as important that everything be done right. The last thing we need is guilty people getting out because somebody can't follow the process.
Having been on a jury before, that ultimately ended up not going to deliberation, I'm convinced that a lot of peer pressure happens in the jury. I decided at the beginning of the case that my verdict was going to be based on the evidence alone and I wasnt goijg to be influenced by other jury members even if i was the only person that beleived what i beleived.
Yeah, with the part about them coming to a decision on several counts, I wouldn't necessarily say that means thr racist juror was cooperating. It could easily be that she was bullshitting to obfuscate the facts of the case and inject enough doubt to get the other jurors to side with a defendant that may have had a credible case against them. Or maybe even by digging in and refusing to budge, she got other jurors to give in because they didn't want to be stuck in deliberation for days. As much as it sucks that that can play a role in verdicts, jury duty doesn't pay as much as the job you can't work while you're serving jury duty and a lot of jobs put pressure on their employees who get jury duty even though it's not legal for them to retaliate for that. The economics of the situation incentivize going with the crowd to keep things moving. Having a juror with such a clearly toxic bias poisons the whole process.
An EXCELLENT example showing such a scenario is the wonderful movie "12 Angry Men" with a bunch of great actors like Henry Fonda and Jack Klugman playing a Jury on a murder trial in (as I recall), the 50's. Especially back then, in conformist America, the peer pressure was a HUGE part of the plot for most of the movie. Even if you're not big on law and order movies, the acting alone was WELL worth the time to watch that movie.
To be clear, if another juror pointed something out about the evidence that you yourself had not considered, you would ignore them? Or do you just mean you would ignore emotional appeals?
@@aimerw I would be open to listening to insights about the evidence. There may be things about the evidence I did not consider before someone else points it out. However, I just wouldn't allow myself to be pressured into accepting someone elses opinion if there opinion is not supported by the evidence. I'm able to change my opinion as part of a jury, I just refuse to be pressured because people are tired of being there, or just want to get it over with or they are bringing in things from outside of the courtroom to help form their verdict.
Got out of jury duty the other day. As soon as I started talking about jury nullification and qualified immunity they couldn't get me out of the court room fast enough.
Just ask, "I keep hearing about a concept called 'jury nullification.' Could you please explain to us what that is?" If either side still has peremptory challenges left, you WILL be booted off. But, if each side has exhausted their peremptory challenges, it will be interesting to see them fall all over themselves to try to get you dismissed "for cause." You'll still get dismissed, but it will be quite comical to see what kind of semantic word salad they come up with to justify it.
@@davidh9638 Last time I was on jury duty the judge dismissed the alternates when we started deliberating. Maybe another case of a judge not caring to follow the law they claim to represent.
Don't do it, jury nullification is something that screws up the legal system. If juries nullify verdicts that lead to the cases most likely to lead to a change of precedence being off limits for appeal. There's little interest in nullifying when you hate the defendant and the case seems cut and dry. It's the ones where it arguably shouldn't be a crime at all that are the ones that need to be appealed the most. If people keep nullifying the cases, it just means that more people are going to be subjected to the bad law as it won't ever get appealed and there's no right to a paid attorney to represents you.
Interesting take, i am inclined to believe that the judge made a mistake removing that juror. That juror may have noticed a proclivity of racial injustice in the way the other jurors were discussing the case and voiced their want to protect the defendent from such profiling by the other jurors. However i was also not the judge there hearing the explination and i am no legal expert.
In 2012, I was a juror in a high profile murder/rape death penalty case. We were given clear instructions on many things including no writing/discussing during the trial while in the jury room. After the first day, during lunch break in the juror room we had a guy that was writing EVERYTHING that had happened (presumably he was planning on writing a book about his experience). I left and went to lunch downtown. Once I came back from lunch one of the other jurors contacted the judge's clerk and that juror was removed immediately and replaced with an alternate. State of Washington v. Tyler Savage
@@TheRealScooterGuy We could write notes during the trial but the notepads had to remain in the jury box. We were never allowed to take the notes into the jury room until we had the case and started deliberations.
I was on a Federal Jury years ago, we had a juror who wanted to find for the plaintiff against the doctor because "black people are always victims and she didn't like that 'dot-head' doctor." The judge said to go back and do our job when this was reported. We finally got her to agree by finding the doctor guilty of malpractice and assigned $1 in damages.
If I was ever charged with a crime I would never want a jury trial. After sitting on 3 juries and being selected as the foreman in 2 of them, the biases that people have seem to override the facts.
The correct choice, which I believe will be mentioned at appeal, would have been to remove both jurors and use two alternates. That would have avoided a lot of discord and help both sides accept the verdict. Maybe even avoid an appeal, though that's unlikely today.
The problem with that is that, if the woman's claim was accurate that the other juror had said the defendants were all "rich, privileged whites", and the other jurors the judge asked had denied that, then they're presumably in agreement with that sentiment and shouldn't have been allowed to remain on the jury either.
My only jury experience had a bit of yelling from one guy who was intentionally being contrarian, bringing up his former military service to try and assert authority, and targeted a lot of his profanity at me when I was elected to be the foreman instead of him. He kept bringing up "jury nullification" and even looked it up on his phone to show everybody. Since it was impossible to work with this guy and I was panicking a little bit, I sent out a note stating that a juror had used their cell phone to look up information contrary to the instructions (I did not name who) and got a mistrial declared, so they had to start over (thankfully Jury presentation for this case was only a few hours a day for a couple of days. It was a pretty simple DUI case.) Nothing about the court process or anything was what left me with a bad perception of serving on a jury. It was dealing with other jurors.
Jury nullification of a law is one of the basic checks and balances on government power, but the guy sounds like a total jackass.(not to mention a DUI is hardly the sort of crime for nullification.)
@@charlesreid9337 jury nullifacation is not grounds for a mistrial. Looking up outside information is grounds for a mistrial. Judges do not like jury nullification but it is a basic part of the system.
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu we just saw an ohio grand jury do this very thing 3 days ago. When the application of the law is unjust, a jury is likely to vote against the prosecution. Rather they understand jury nullification or not.
I was suing someone and a juror had a family member who died. He was dismissed right before they went in before deliberations. Both jurors should have been dismissed right away and replaced with alternates. It didn't matter as i lost the case.
Yeah we'll probably see this case pop up again in appeals court, this was messy and it goes to show that racial tensions are leaking into our justice system.
Racial tension has always been in the justice system, this only shows that some people are not willing to allow it to affect a trial in such a blatant manner.
Yep, attorney's will hang their hat, on anything problematic. This one's going to be appealed, and has a high probability of succeeding. Should have just called a mistrial, and start over. A new trial will happen anyways.
Are leaking? Seriously where have you been to think that all of a sudden racism is all of a sudden popping up in our justice system. So called racial tensions have been part of our justice system from even before day 1. There are literally supreme court decisions where in their opinion a justice wrote that there isn't a right for a black man that they have to follow. Just a few years ago in Dallas when a new DA took office he found a binder on jury selection that had been in use for several administrations before him on how to keep potential black & hispanic jurors off a jury and the only reason why this binder came to light is because the new DA was the first black DA in that county. Sorry to bust your bubble but racism in the judicial system has ALWAYS been there.
I saw a video of a white female police officer was shot in the face with her own gun by a guy a guy she was trying to arrest. It was on her body cam and also by a person filming it on their cell phone. The jury said they didn't believe it because they thought it had been altered. They came back with a not guilty verdict.
The reason there is always more than 12 jurors and that all sit in for the trial and are only chosen by random during the trial deliberations is over, there would be no grounds for appeal. This replacement during deliberations happens more than you think.
A judge removed the juror in the trial of Edwin Edwards (not for racism, but because juror refused to deliberate) he replaced the juror with an alternate and jury convicted. Withstood appeal.
Fast Eddie still ended up in Club Fed for ten years. He should have been in jail decades earlier, but at least karma finally caught up with him. Remember the juror who said, "It's his business what he do..." in one of Fast Eddie's earlier bribery and corruption trials?
I was on a jury where the foreman started deliberations by stating his view and that nothing would ever change his vote. He then said that the police discovered the gun and since he didn’t trust the police as far as he was concerned the gun didn’t exist.
sounds like the last jury I was on BTW I WILL EVER SERVE AGAIN the forewoman pulled that crap ..... our 1st vote was 11 -1 .... day by day people caved, thanksgiving was the day after the final 2 of us caved it was awful FYI I have served 3 other times w/o problems..... this was POST BLM ( it's called jury nullification.... IT DOES NOT MATTER what the truth is)
Steve, I just wish everybody would take their court cases to trial. That's how you stop the corrupt judicial system. That's how you bring it to a standing halt
About 2% of cases go to trial. I had a judge tell me if that even doubled to 4%, then the system would collapse. There was a period of a couple of years where no civil cases were tried in San Bernardino, CA because there were so many drug cases to try, and criminal cases have to be heard quickly in CA.
I’ve always felt that the jury room should not be secret. In fact I think every juror should have to sit in a room alone after the verdict is agreed upon and write minimum one page explanation in support of their vote. What percentage of those papers would come back in crayon basically saying “I didn’t understand any of this stuff so I went with the majority”. I bet 15-20% EASY.
Perhaps, but a lot of people who might offer a valuable read on the testimony of witnesses, accusers or defendants in a verbal setting might struggle with making a written argument convincing. There are a lot of adults who you might call functionally literate ... they know their letters well enough to fill out paperwork, but if you ask them for an essay, you're going to get something at maybe fifth grade level. You'd risk excluding or throwing into question the validity of the input from a lot of people with that idea.
He interviewed 5 before reaching a conclusion. I assume their stories were consistent enough the other 5 were unlikely to give an honest substantislly different version.
Imagine if the roles in this were reversed. If it was a predominantly white jury, and a black person stood up and said they were defending the downtrodden black people, because whitey was trying to railroad them, and convict an innocent black person. This cannot stand, and an entirely new jury should be brought in. Yes, race is an issue (i wish it wasn't, but it is). If you cannot tell who is railroading who in the jury, you must start over with a new jury. Because the jury has just proven that they cannot be impartial. And the shenanigans in the jury room have surely tainted even the jurors who might have originally been able to keep a level head initially.
It sounds like both of the jurors were allowing hard racial bias to influence their decisions, but one was willing to lie about it outside of deliberations, while the other was stupid enough to explicitly state it to the judge in front of the rest of the court. The outcome is not surprising at all. Hopefully, a lesson was learned here.
Let change it a bit. Guy say the person is guilty bc they are black and the say no and tells the judge they were sticking up for black people. Are the both racist? Stand up to racism isn't racism
Agree, it sounds like the black was the actual racist here. At the very least the judge should have remove both of them or neither. Not removing both just screams racial bias on the judges part and honestly shameful to hear that the judge acted that way.
Ok, I'll draw on my past experiences... A white woman in a room of predominately black people saying racist things? Or, a black person in a room of predominately black people saying racist things?
@@RoSaWa386-33well he said she said. So if you believe the juror who said F you then yes. Racism racism racism everywhere but only seems to go one way. A white woman outnumbered in a closed room must be pretty brave.
The prosecutor also said they were fine with removing the other juror if there was evidence of racial bias. A racial statement is not necessarily an indication of bias. Example. Yeah he is a rich old white guy, what does that have to do with the facts? Example2: of course poor black people aren't charged with this. They do not have the connections or money to commit these acts.
Me thinking back in the day 60 Minutes and such had black people on saying they would stand up for black people and wouldn't vote in a jury to convict a black person, even if guilty.
I was on a jury where are juror was removed during deliberations, because he's suddenly remembered that his wife was murdered. After five weeks of testimony and two days of deliberations, he suddenly remembered that his wife had been murdered. He jumped up and went to get the bailiff, who took him to see the judge. Next thing we know, we've got the alternate. Thankfully we're did reach a verdict.
Wow. So if that didn't come up during the jury selection process, that's some SERIOUS blocking out of memories. Of course, we deal with harsh reality that way sometimes. I'll forget about a lost loved one (decades ago) for weeks, and then suddenly it will hit me, sometimes with massive sadness from a song or whatever. It must be interesting, being a trial judge.
@@rogergeyer9851 - Once it was explained, it actually made sense: They were separated. His wife had left him for another man, and he'd moved across the country. At some point, he found out the other man had killed his wife, and the divorce never became final. And all that happened 30-some years earlier. So it's not really as crazy as it - what am I saying? It's still guano psychotic.
@@rogergeyer9851 -- I had a roommate 12 years ago who simply does not remember the dog she owned at the time. I recently asked if she had any pictures of him (by name), and she had no idea what I was talking about. Even when I reminded her of what he looked like, what breed he was, etc., she denied ever having that dog or any dog of that breed. (And it wasn't like she was being technical and trying to say it was someone else's dog or something -- she had blocked him out of her memory for some reason.)
The problem I have with all of this is that I need to know the specific context before I would say that saying "I'm sticking up for white people" is problematic. In current year it is all too acceptable to openly disparage white people, especially if you are a PoC. So if her claim that the other juror was using euphemisms or epithets to imply "whiteness" is part of the problem being deliberated on, or part of the evidence against the defendant, then her statements would actually be ANTI-racist and the other juror would be the racist in this case.
Or, we can assume the judge wasn't a complete moron and asked more than two questions. Sometimes you can take the words at face value, and somebody who said a pretty racist thing might actually just be racist and not some maligned martyr for the poor overwhelmed crackers of america.
Getting into your "how do you tell who is telling the truth?" question. I was watching Jury selection (I was one of the extras that was eventually released). This was for a criminal case. The District Attorney looked at Juror number 8, dropped his pencil, then said "Juror number 8, you were out in the hall and Juror number 6 told you that I dropped my pencil. Do you have any trouble believing his testimony?" That DA was lucky I wasn't Juror number 8, because I was thinking - well, didn't you plead not guilty to dropping your pencil? Now I have 2 conflicting pieces of information, which one do you want me to believe? Told that story to an Attorney/litigator buddy whoses response was "Damn".
I remember a story my grandfather told me in his later years. As part of the backstory, my grandfather was the head of engineering for a manufacturing organization when I was a kid. His company was sued for product liability. I remember the case went on for years as it went through discovery, motions, and finally a trial. They ended up with very limited liability, blaming misuse as a major part of the cause of injury. It was very stressful for my grandfather as he was part owner and good friends with the other partners. Many years later he was in Voir Dire on a criminal case. The judge was asking each juror about previous contact with the justice system before each side would go, so he had his answers prepared for when they got to him. He explained about being the defendant in a multi-year product liability lawsuit. The judge then asked "What do you think of the judicial system?" "It's pretty good except for the lawyers." That got a laugh out of many, and a follow up "Why do you say that." "Because only lawyers can know nothing and you pay them hundreds of dollars an hour while they learn. Lawyers know the law, but they don't know anything about engineering, product design, and definitely nothing about the product. Engineers start the same way too, knowing the basics, but they know they won't win a project unless they understand far more. So an engineer learns on their own dime, but lawyers make hundreds of dollars an hour to learn anything relevant about the case." More laughs, and he did end up on the jury.
@@matthewbeasley7765: That's interesting. I took a "problem solving and decision making" course as part of my career at a large corporation. A key part of the decision making process for complex business decisions was letting a group of experts "fight it out" (verbally), for days sometimes, with a moderator to keep things on track and record key things agreed on. The moderator didn't have to have a CLUE about the technical content -- only keeping the process on track. But with juries, the people trying to decide on the veracity of "expert witnesses" have only the questions asked and their experience to decide...
@@charlesreid9337 I'll take a "damn" from a very high end litigator to your "except he didn't" any day. In the setting we were in, that is exactly what was being discussed - testimony against the accused who had plead not guilty. "Damn".
If you do a google search on barrister and judges robes for the UK, the colors and length of wig on Steve's dog is actually for a Judge. So do we keep calling him a barrister?
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 I think in my first 2 or 3 comments I did call him a Judge Dog but then I fell in with Barrister Dog when Steve and others used that term. (I still think of him as a Judge Dog though.😀)
@@idristaylor5093 I've been calling him Barrister dog, but have had several comments re him being a Judge and sure enough research backs that up, And I too now think of him as Judge, hence the quandary. I think I'll stick to Barrister Dog otherwise no one will know what I'm on about and it sort of upsets the Lawyer dog vibe, A guy asking for a Judge Dog just hasn't the same meaning from the story behind it. Thanks for your input.
I was an alternate on a case and replaced a juror during deliberations. During deliberations it came to light that the juror lied on the questioneer during jury selection. They jury sent a note to the judge and he was dismissed
@@MrBlueBurd0451 The point is that there were up to 10 other jurors present when the alleged exchange of racist statements occurred. They can be interviewed individually, outside the intimidating group dynamic, to help determine whether what *he* said is true, or whether what *she* said is true. The judge should do more than just interview the two jurors in question.
@@joesterling4299 That would help determine, but it doesn't necessarily succeed in getting to the truth if the others cover for a sentiment they share.
Too much of the legal system, and the political system, is based on assuming people are honest and have good intentions for people other than themselves. The addition of body cams on cops speaks to the need to change this assumption. So it seems reasonable, to me, that if the court room is recorded, the jury deliberation room should also be recorded.
@@gierrah Ever heard of retaliation? Juries need to be able to speak completely freely. It's not the judge's job to decide if the jury members are deciding things "fairly" or not. The jury are the ultimate arbiters once they have gone into deliberations.
@@snex000 the record existing is important. It doesn't have to be viewed unless necessary, but it should still exist, for any case where it could be necessary. If there were absolute proof with no question of what was said, then it would be easy to dismiss jurors without controversy. But currently there are many people in these comments saying "I don't believe she was lying" or defending her statements believing the other person was lying, based solely on this retelling by the news story and Steve. Know what would quash any credible theories of a judge being biased to who could be telling the truth? If the truth was actually known.
To be fair if I was in trial in Atlanta, Albany or Columbus I wouldn't want a black jury. In my small town I trust them. Ran into far to many racists blacks in Atlanta, Albany or Columbus. Far to many look at it as their chance to get pay back for "racism" by being racists.
Only time I've been called in for JD was actually this year and we were discharged immediately after selection, here though no alternates, but instead whole trial had to be adjourned and a new jury empanelled, rather miffed about it still as to why that had happened (do not question the judge's decision though if defence had put forward an objection to the member sooner that would have been great for everyone involved.
If you are to judge somebody based on your life experiences. How can a poor person judge a rich person. Their life experiences are completely different. Thus, how they view the world is different.
Because you can't say that the verdict was impacted with any level of certainty. It may be sent back for a retrial, but when you've got a juror that has a credibility issue, there is no easy solution. Also keep in mind that this was a 9 week trial. As in extremely expensive and depending upon the actual verdict, it might not even matter. If the jury votes to acquit, then chances are that the juror didn't have any sort of impact on the proceeding. It's when they find the defendant guilty of various things that it could be an issue.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Good point about the judge hoping the case goes away. I'm suspecting that is what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. There was so much prosecutorial misconduct that should have been a dismissal with prejudice. (Just stating that Kyle taking the 5th proves he's guilty should have been enough by itself.) But doing so would make the judge the target of ire for many who were on one side of a highly charged politicized case. The judge was hoping a jury would make the case go away without him having to be the "bad guy." But since the jury came back not guilty, the judge didn't have to make any hard rulings.
@@THall-vi8cp I'm so disappointed that no jurors reacted. I would have hit the floor, and then asked the judge to instruct Binger to stop pointing the gun at me.
@@choccolocco Did the people that say it didn't happen also happen to be the same race as the person who was accused of saying it? I'd bet any amount of money they were. This whole thing stinks and honestly should probably have a change of venue at this point.
There were a lot more charges to consider. There were 135 counts in the indictment. There were originally 7 defendants. Most of them rolled on the two involved in this trial.
@@RicardoSantos-oz3uj No, not necessarily. In court juries are the finders of fact. Judges make rulings based on opinion and in the interest of fairness. That's they way it works.
I'm in my 6th decade of life. Throughout my time the nation around me seemed to be moving less and less racist. Beginning around 2008 it began creeping back into our society. In 2016 the return of this bigotry skyrocketed and racism became a deeply uncomfortable norm. Those who harbored these hateful, evil emotions, for *_some inexplicable reason,_* felt empowered to express these views again in song, writings, blogs and vlogs. They expressed it with protest signs and t-shirt iron-ons. They expressed it with violence. And this deeply evil expression hasn't ceased or been abated and I believe is still spreading. I have no doubt racism has been expressed during jury deliberations many times in the past just like other racist actions we've seen. Most were in a more distant past. I would bet that this manner of expressing internal evil, as all the others, has increased lately as well.
The truth is the rise in animus is because of Trump. When he was campaigning...and as President.. he was a vile, nasty, mysoginist, and racist..giving people who had these feelings, thoughts and animosity towards others, FULL LICENSE to be their true selves, and to be open about their thinking and feelings against people they considered "less than".
Yeah. The equality we achieved toward the end of the last century is not good enough for some people. They want retribution, and "compensation" for atrocities that their dead ancestors suffered at the hands of the dead ancestors of other people. They want privilege, exactly what they accuse another race of having. They want social superiority. Pushback against that kind of racism ironically also gets called "racism."
It probably still is. The big thing that's changed is that it's more heavily covered. I'm in my 40s and it was always there and not really getting that much better very quickly. There was a period before I was born roughly the '40s through the '70s where it was improving dramatically. But, since then there hasn't been much improvement and these issues are mostly used by the wealthy to distract from the increased income inequality. Which is to be expected. Most of the work and progress that was really necessary was completed by then. By the '70s you had college educated black couples making more than white college educated white couples. And while there were definitely still issues with racism, the bulk of the necessary progress had been made. Going forward, there just wasn't the same easy projects to undertake and when you do largely achieve your goals, the infrastructure pushing it doesn't just go away. I think the only time that ever happened was when the March of Dimes largely stopped doing anything with Polio as it wasn't an issue and started to focus more broadly. For the most part, the sort of extreme views that lead to that impression are far less common than people think, they just get amplified by social media companies trying to keep people engaged with their site and the news media that hasn't had so little respect for the news in decades.
Saying those words is as racist as saying "It' okay to be white." I don't think racism means much anymore. Why wasn't the other juror removed for saying the defendant deserves to be found guilty for being white and rich?
How did they figure who was lying, it was literally just "he said, she said". Did the judge even ask the other jurors what was said in the room? What if the situation was reversed? What if a black juror told a judge that a white juror said a black defendant should he convicted just because he's black, and that he was standing up for black people by coming forward? Then what if, when asked, the white juror denied the allegations, and so the black juror was dismissed?
So jury nullification has acceptable parameters? I'm bringing this up for arguments sake, not because I think that racism is a good cause for nullification.
The time to remove a juror for opinions on either juror involved way was before the trial when picking the jury not during deliberations, will be a mess on appeal. I don't care if the judge got the he said she said position on this right or wrong they should be hands off at that point as this is basically picking the verdict removing a juror in the way of it. At worst if no one is removed they get a hung jury on some counts & can re do the trial without injecting race into it & at best they can get an actual verdict. What they get now is a horribly tainted verdict picked by the judge.
Supposedly that was the lie. Also, that may have been factual. I find it funny though that the one thing that the removed juror held unto was the "white" part and not the two other things that are much worse (rich and entitled).
So here's my most likely to have happened One juror, probably black, says "rich white and entitled" so I'm going to convict [based on skin colour]. That's racist. The other juror reacts to that.
I was on a Wayne County trial where deliberations started at 11 to 1 for innocence (I was the single guilty vote). By the end of 2 days I swayed all 11 fellow jurors. Good times.
I sincerely hope you didn't make a mistake. If 11 jurors were leaning toward not guilty, and I was convinced of guilt, I'd want to know I wasn't screwing up someone's life with a false guilty verdict.
@@TheRealScooterGuy no mistake at all, after the trial, the deputy and judge came back and congratulated us on our decision. (After the judge had left, the deputy told us that the dude had written an apology to the judge admitting what he had done)
Just a thought: I find it interesting that the judge clearly stated that one juror lied based on the word of another.
Judges have to make that decision every day and I doubt it was just one's word against the other
Judge said she lied multiple time but we don't know if that was for different questions or statements.
@@sittingindetroit9204 lmao Detroit
Not necessarily. Juror was tossed because she made racist statements to the Judge. End of her story. She's done. As for the other juror, someone said he made a racist statement, and he denied doing so. Without further evidence of which is telling the truth, he (unlike her who confessed), can't be proven guilty of making the comment, so he is treated as innocent. So, the judge didn't need to believe him; only to say he couldn't prove him guilty. It is a good call. Innocent until proven guilty is, unfortunately, often laid aside by jurors in favor of the "innocent until proven that we don't like you" approach.
The judge interviewed multiple other jurors. So it was multiple points of view. Not just the two.
A couple of years ago a juror was tossed because she declared god told her (in a dream)the defendant was innocent regardless of the evidence. The other jurors protested she refused to deliberate.
Interesting. Before accepting/denying (point of perspective) the clam by debunking, I believe someone who had received word from God (assuming the One God of creation) would also understand a path of exoneration would be produced by God, assuming that is what God intended. And if the message from God was to interject with this claim making it a message for all jurors (far different than notification of a condition to an individual) then I believe following the events leading through and after the trial would also become apparent as people looked back on the events, regardless of the other jurors belief in the message.
If anyone is claiming to know what a God wants, thinks, or says, they have absolutely zero credibility.
That’s not true at all
Billions of people talk to their God every day, is it weird when they talk back?
They're were just trying to get out of jury duty
I have had the privilege of being a defendant (traffic court), a juror (battery with bodily injury) and as an interested party (family member). While I would generally trust a jury, I do not trust the justice/court system. I have seen the corruption first hand. As a juror we acquitted a man charged with battery in what would ordinarily be considered an act of heroism on his part. He saved his inebriated lady friend from being turned into orange goo on a major highway. The lady deputy arrested him because lady friend got a bruise on her wrist when he pulled her out from traffic in the face of a high speed car bearing down on them. One lady juror refused to vote to acquit because she was (presumably) standing up for women. When we went through the facts of the case on step at a time, using the jury instructions, she finally changed her mind. To the other eleven of us it was clear he was innocent. Traffic court is another matter altogether. Guilty until proven innocent. Mexican law.
Ah yes, the age old right of women to have kinetic interactions with automobiles.
@@GamesFromSpacethat will sure show men! 😂
No good deed goes unpunished.
That brings up a heck of a question, when did the state give its self the ability to declare some crimes as civil suits as a convenient way around due process?
I'd ask who allowed it happen but I already know it was the same bunch of political crookes and short sighted fools that always compromise basic rights for fear of seeming unreasonable.
Yep. Do not trust the Criminal Injustice System. I got charged with aggravated assault for pulling a guy off my girlfriend in her own house. He got convicted of domestic violence. In Michigan, what I did was perfectly legal under the Self Defense Act, yet the corrupt prosecutors came after Me anyway. One idiot assistant prosecutor walked up to my attorney and said, "This guy never should have been charged, and I'm not dropping the charges 🙄 "
All these people want to do is win to make themselves look good. They don't care about justice.
But it's not just 2 people in a room, it's a whole jury. Surely the judge could question a few of them and know for sure who is lying.
If the Judge wanted to get to the truth, then the Judge would be able to get to the truth. The Judge blew past his opportunity to get to the truth.
I believe she told the judge that in the judges chambers with just him and her
Its not as much whether she said it as in what context..admittedly worded poorly. But by itself," im standing up for white people" implying you will aquit due to race..certainly a reason to get kicked off. Said in response to another juror saying they will convict regardless of evidence based on defendents race..not so much..racism absolutley can go both ways..imagine reversed roles..juror in room says he is voting to convict regardless of facts because the defendent is black..one juror goes to judge tells that and says shes standing up for black people.. now who is in the wrong... so to me the question is did the other juror(s) really say they were gonna convict based on race alone..if so wrong juror was removed..regardless of who was what race..
@@additudeobxthe judge knows you cant question claims from POC. If there's a dispute between a black person and a white person the black person is automatically telling the truth and the white person is automatically a racist.
I let a black friend/coworker (military) live with me for free for almost 6 months, after he kicked my dog down a flight of stairs and broke his femur bone I automatically became a racist and was told I would be charged with a racial attack if I beat the guy up.
That changed my entire outlook on racial groups living as one. And because of that I really am a racist. I don't hate anyone but I believe we should all live in separate places.
That's assuming that the others wouldn't just say the juror never said it.
Some people can lie more convincingly than others telling the truth especially when they've had a lifetime of experience. The pressure of confrontation can make a truth teller nervous and unsettled.
Yep that's why cops are automatically struck from jury selection - every prosecutor Judge & Defense attorney knows they LIE for a living & are TRAINED how to lie convincingly.
Example in Police academy their taught after shooting a person while cuffing the shot bleeding out person to constantly YELL & SCREAM STOP RESISTING!!!
When witnesses testify they'll say the cop Screamed STOP RESISTING - 1st
It's a PTSD response discovered in Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan from soldiers in Fire fights & when debriefing theyed REVERSE many sequences of Events.
Police trainers Ex Vets took this PTSD response knowledge to training & taught new cops how to TRICK witnesses without them KNOWING they were being set up for witness testimony later on
That’s me! I always lose at the mafia game.
Like 👮🏻
And some people have a hard time being believable while never lying.
@@stephanreiken9912 yup
I was jury member #12 on a murder trial with two alternates. In our Indiana case the alternates were involved in the deliberations with the other twelve members. Had someone be removed, the alternate would not have to catch up, but during the deliberations the two alternates could not vote.
I would have preferred that to being dismissed before deliberations. I don't know the verdict of the last case I at on.
@@kenbrown2808 That's usually a matter of public record. You can usually look it up if you care to. Or you can arrange with one of the jurors that does deliberate to find out what the result was.
Makes sense doing it that way.
@@robertheinkel6225 'Involved' in, doesn't make sense - otherwise, expand the jury to be (in this case) 14, with 12 votes being the deciding factor. OBSERVING the deliberations though, is entirely different, and a good idea. If an alternate needs to be brought in, first order of the day could be to hear them out for any questions they had arising from the 'main' deliberation points. Then continue.
@@kenbrown2808what'd you do to get dismissed? O.o
Both jurors should have been dismissed. They took juror 44 at their word and assumed juror 26 was lying. Why the benefit of doubt only for 1 of them?
Because 44 was probably black, and 26 was pro white. These things always go one way.
Steve said "they could both be mistaken I suppose" ... that concept is beyond most people it seems. The idea that someone can say something that is not true and not be lying escapes a lot of people.
So no one can make a mistake or get confused? That's obviously wrong. And the older I get, the more easily I could get confused re memory if there's a lot of data being exchanged, and I admit it.
It’s pretty funny Steve almost ignores the statement about hating white people but omg if someone defends white people 😢
@@rogergeyer9851no. Scoots was saying it's possible to say something that isn't true & *_not_* be lying.
Or in your own words, *_yes,_* someone *_can_* make a mistake or be confused.
Sounds like a major shit show of a trial, and nobody should be surprised if this case ends up being retried in couple years.
@@Iceberg86300 Memory is a fickle thing. Two people can mishear or misremember something they both experienced just a few hours before.
@@Iceberg86300 His comment is basically a perfect example of this, he basically said that the person said something completely different than what they said.
I was on a very long trial like that once. It wasn't as long, but even with all the work that the judge and attorneys were putting into cutting the unnecessary witnesses out of the process, it was still a month. One of the things I remember was how much weight one side wanted us to put on the fact that one of the witnesses was held in contempt for simply not showing up for a deposition without informing the attorneys and trying to find an alternate date that would work. I'm not sure about the other jurors, but I didn't personally see how that was relevant to the testimony.
By the end of it, I hated both sides so much that I would have taken the more than million dollars that was at issue and given it to pretty much anybody else or even just made them watch me light it on fire. But, sometimes that's what being impartial looks like. You don't have to like or respect both parties, just as long as your feelings aren't impacting your judgement to favor one party or the other.
JURY NULLIFICATION DOESNT MATTER WHY YOU WONT VOTE TO CONVICT, THE COURT HAS NO RIGHT TO ASK WHY YOU SAID NOT GUILTY. ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS YOU VOTE GUILTY, THATS "JURY NULLIFICATION" AND ITS THE DAMN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. AMERICA ISNT A DEMOCRACY, NOR IS IT A DICTATORSHIP. WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW, ALL OTHER LAW DERIVES FROM THE CONSTITUTION.
I hate that trials are often rich people arguing over a million dollars, and the issue is being decided by a bunch of strangers getting paid $10/day.
Jurors are allowed to let their feelings impact the judgment. They just need facts to support their feelings.
No one is unbiased. Black-and-white issues rarely make it to trial. Usually, the issues at trial are presented as a jumble of competing facts. How much we weigh each fact depends on our emotions. As it should.
The first (mythical) jury trial was open and shut. Orestes did kill his mother and her lover in revenge for their murder of his father. But the jury acquitted Orestes believing this was an act of piety. Feelings swayed the jury. The whole purpose of a jury is to place a check on uncaring law.
@@jwrosenbury No, the whole point of a jury is to have a group weighing the evidence to try and get the fairest hearing of the evidence. The feelings get in there because we're talking about humans, not because it's a desired aspect of a jury.
Feelings getting in there is a large part of why trials are often times not fair. It's great if you're a pretty white woman with money, and not so much for the rest of us.
@@thesaltyspacecowboy8531This is just ignorant. Jury nullification is a byproduct of the prohibition on being tried for the same offense multiple times and the secrecy of the jury room.
It's also something that ensures that we keep trying people for ridiculous things, as the cases that get nullified are the ones most likely to get overturned on appeal.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
Okay, so the juror who said they deserve to be convicted because of their race isn't removed, that's the real story here.
If the defendant ends up getting convicted then he should have an easy appeal due to that juror's racist statement that he should be convicted because he's White. But maybe not, considering how corrupt and biased the "just us" system is.
BINGO… Welcome to Biden’s judicial system
The idea of just removing both, particularly when one proved themselves in the wrong, opens up the possibility of just throwing accusations at a juror who won't agree, just to get them out of the way and get a chance to get a more amenable alternate (even if it means taking yourself out).
In strict "he said/she said" scenario, it's probably best to not throw either juror out.
Yep. Blacks can do anything towards whites and it’s ok. But you question that then you are wrong.
@@VincentLauria6 -- I'm going to suggest civics lessons for you. The President of the United States doesn't control courtroom procedure. (Also, there was absolutely no reason to make a political comment here in this thread.)
I've been on 5 juries in my life. Yes, I saw evidence of racism in some of those deliberations. In each case, the elected foreperson stopped it by saying we were there to discuss the facts of the case and nothing else. That way we were able to agree on a verdict. So, the jury itself has some power, too.
Is there a law against jurors being allowed to be racist though? And who determines what racism is? I think in this case the juror was removed because of what they said to the judge specifically
Damn, how'd you get called for jury duty five times?
@@scott_johnson_ So, if a person of a different skin color, an avowed racist, was on a jury in a case you were the defendant in, that would be "good" with you? lol
@@scott_johnson_ what did they say to the judge? And who is they and who's the judge? Am I the plaintiff or the witness or the judge or the jury or just the idiot standing in the corner SUCKING MY THUMB??
@scott_johnson_ if a person of a different race is upset by what you say that's racism.
Sounds like the trial was a train wreck.
Well, it sounds like the jury was.
It spilled chemicals all over the place leaving a contaminated jury
Its glaringly obvious that we don't have all the information.
The things work now I am inclined to believe the white juror by default. There has been an assault of whites for some time now.
I was on a jury where an alternate had to step in on the third day of deliberations; not due to any conflict with other jurors, but to some issue in her personal life. The change was definitely disruptive, but we did eventually reach a verdict.
How was it disruptive? Genuine question. 🙂
Things happen. In a stressful deliberation, someone could get sick (like heart attack symptoms, etc). That's why alternates are picked and listen to the trial as part of the jury.
Are you one of those God fearing, Jesus loving, church going, Bible studying, guns carrying Christians?? 😂😂
@@rogergeyer9851 This. The judge didn’t say precisely why the juror couldn’t continue, but suggested some medical issue had arisen in her family that was preventing it. No indication whatsoever the juror did anything wrong or failed to do anything right.
I think regardless of who is right or wrong a mistrial or appeal is warranted. Justice can't be served if the jury is focused on things other than the facts of the case.
Then why even have a jury? All juries are focused on things other than the facts of the case. That is inherently part of using people to decide things. You think OJ was acquitted based on facts? The jurors decided based on "I'm not putting OJ away just for killing a couple white people"
Based on everything you see going on in America right now you still believe in legal fiction? The only thing that matters in the court room is a kangaroo court against the accused. Anything else is legal fiction.
An appeal was made. Two dudes committed massive tax fraud. Guilty as fuck. 5 of his codefendants ratted him out. And there were emails.
@@lrmackmcbride7498I believe they are guilty as well. When they're guilty it's just as important that everything be done right. The last thing we need is guilty people getting out because somebody can't follow the process.
When race is the primary focus of every single news report, every cultural discussion, why is anyone surprised this happened?
Having been on a jury before, that ultimately ended up not going to deliberation, I'm convinced that a lot of peer pressure happens in the jury. I decided at the beginning of the case that my verdict was going to be based on the evidence alone and I wasnt goijg to be influenced by other jury members even if i was the only person that beleived what i beleived.
Yeah, with the part about them coming to a decision on several counts, I wouldn't necessarily say that means thr racist juror was cooperating. It could easily be that she was bullshitting to obfuscate the facts of the case and inject enough doubt to get the other jurors to side with a defendant that may have had a credible case against them.
Or maybe even by digging in and refusing to budge, she got other jurors to give in because they didn't want to be stuck in deliberation for days. As much as it sucks that that can play a role in verdicts, jury duty doesn't pay as much as the job you can't work while you're serving jury duty and a lot of jobs put pressure on their employees who get jury duty even though it's not legal for them to retaliate for that. The economics of the situation incentivize going with the crowd to keep things moving.
Having a juror with such a clearly toxic bias poisons the whole process.
An EXCELLENT example showing such a scenario is the wonderful movie "12 Angry Men" with a bunch of great actors like Henry Fonda and Jack Klugman playing a Jury on a murder trial in (as I recall), the 50's.
Especially back then, in conformist America, the peer pressure was a HUGE part of the plot for most of the movie.
Even if you're not big on law and order movies, the acting alone was WELL worth the time to watch that movie.
To be clear, if another juror pointed something out about the evidence that you yourself had not considered, you would ignore them? Or do you just mean you would ignore emotional appeals?
@@aimerw I would be open to listening to insights about the evidence. There may be things about the evidence I did not consider before someone else points it out. However, I just wouldn't allow myself to be pressured into accepting someone elses opinion if there opinion is not supported by the evidence. I'm able to change my opinion as part of a jury, I just refuse to be pressured because people are tired of being there, or just want to get it over with or they are bringing in things from outside of the courtroom to help form their verdict.
That's a hard position to hold successfully.
Got out of jury duty the other day. As soon as I started talking about jury nullification and qualified immunity they couldn't get me out of the court room fast enough.
Yep, sure fire way to never have to sit on a jury. 100% of the time it works every time.
Just ask, "I keep hearing about a concept called 'jury nullification.' Could you please explain to us what that is?" If either side still has peremptory challenges left, you WILL be booted off. But, if each side has exhausted their peremptory challenges, it will be interesting to see them fall all over themselves to try to get you dismissed "for cause." You'll still get dismissed, but it will be quite comical to see what kind of semantic word salad they come up with to justify it.
Rule #1 of jury nullification. Wait until the alternates are dismissed.
Rule #2, don't ever talk about nullification, just do it.
Alternates are not dismissed until the whole jury is dismissed.
@@idrathernot_2 Spread the word everywhere outside of the courtroom.
@@davidh9638 Last time I was on jury duty the judge dismissed the alternates when we started deliberating. Maybe another case of a judge not caring to follow the law they claim to represent.
Don't do it, jury nullification is something that screws up the legal system. If juries nullify verdicts that lead to the cases most likely to lead to a change of precedence being off limits for appeal. There's little interest in nullifying when you hate the defendant and the case seems cut and dry. It's the ones where it arguably shouldn't be a crime at all that are the ones that need to be appealed the most.
If people keep nullifying the cases, it just means that more people are going to be subjected to the bad law as it won't ever get appealed and there's no right to a paid attorney to represents you.
The judge should not choose and pick a jury to get the verdict he wants
Interesting take, i am inclined to believe that the judge made a mistake removing that juror. That juror may have noticed a proclivity of racial injustice in the way the other jurors were discussing the case and voiced their want to protect the defendent from such profiling by the other jurors. However i was also not the judge there hearing the explination and i am no legal expert.
Sounds to me like a WHOLE BUNCH of these jurors were racist----in both directions.
News flash, a lot of judges are dumber than these two jurors, don't sell yourself short. This situation just stinks in my opinion
"I am defending white people" is not something non-racists say though.
In 2012, I was a juror in a high profile murder/rape death penalty case. We were given clear instructions on many things including no writing/discussing during the trial while in the jury room. After the first day, during lunch break in the juror room we had a guy that was writing EVERYTHING that had happened (presumably he was planning on writing a book about his experience). I left and went to lunch downtown. Once I came back from lunch one of the other jurors contacted the judge's clerk and that juror was removed immediately and replaced with an alternate.
State of Washington v. Tyler Savage
I've never understood why they don't want jurors writing down notes.
@@TheRealScooterGuy We could write notes during the trial but the notepads had to remain in the jury box. We were never allowed to take the notes into the jury room until we had the case and started deliberations.
@@daveb2280 What state? They can all be different.
So if a witness takes the stand and says they can cook grits in 5 minutes and I know it takes 20, I can assume they're lying? :)
Yes but if the defense council's girlfriend shows up to talk about cars, you should sit up and pay attention.
Well, Your cousin can...
Only if you or a neighbor have a clean screen....
The real crime is cooking grits ;) JKJK as a midwestern kid, i had never heard of grits until basic training... not a fan :P
They could have used instant grits (a blasphemy) and merely be fibbing to protect their reputation.
I was on a Federal Jury years ago, we had a juror who wanted to find for the plaintiff against the doctor because "black people are always victims and she didn't like that 'dot-head' doctor." The judge said to go back and do our job when this was reported. We finally got her to agree by finding the doctor guilty of malpractice and assigned $1 in damages.
The judge did that *TWICE* in the Scott Peterson trial because he'd been told to not allow a hung jury no matter what it took.
Makes you wonder how a jurist can be impartial if they make racial statements regarding the person on trial.
So how can this judge be sure that the juror didn't corrupt the rest of the jury before being removed
If I was ever charged with a crime I would never want a jury trial. After sitting on 3 juries and being selected as the foreman in 2 of them, the biases that people have seem to override the facts.
The correct choice, which I believe will be mentioned at appeal, would have been to remove both jurors and use two alternates. That would have avoided a lot of discord and help both sides accept the verdict. Maybe even avoid an appeal, though that's unlikely today.
And the someone gets sick and the trial has to start over... There are reasons they don't dismiss jurors lightly.
The problem with that is that, if the woman's claim was accurate that the other juror had said the defendants were all "rich, privileged whites", and the other jurors the judge asked had denied that, then they're presumably in agreement with that sentiment and shouldn't have been allowed to remain on the jury either.
@@PrezVeto -- Or the statement came when everyone was talking at once, or in small groups, and the others simply didn't hear it.
Talk about how they are ruining trumps business without a trial
My only jury experience had a bit of yelling from one guy who was intentionally being contrarian, bringing up his former military service to try and assert authority, and targeted a lot of his profanity at me when I was elected to be the foreman instead of him. He kept bringing up "jury nullification" and even looked it up on his phone to show everybody. Since it was impossible to work with this guy and I was panicking a little bit, I sent out a note stating that a juror had used their cell phone to look up information contrary to the instructions (I did not name who) and got a mistrial declared, so they had to start over (thankfully Jury presentation for this case was only a few hours a day for a couple of days. It was a pretty simple DUI case.)
Nothing about the court process or anything was what left me with a bad perception of serving on a jury. It was dealing with other jurors.
Jury nullification of a law is one of the basic checks and balances on government power, but the guy sounds like a total jackass.(not to mention a DUI is hardly the sort of crime for nullification.)
@@charlesreid9337 jury nullifacation is not grounds for a mistrial. Looking up outside information is grounds for a mistrial. Judges do not like jury nullification but it is a basic part of the system.
@@lrmackmcbride7498 voting it yourself isn't. Encouraging others to do it can be.
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu we just saw an ohio grand jury do this very thing 3 days ago. When the application of the law is unjust, a jury is likely to vote against the prosecution. Rather they understand jury nullification or not.
I was suing someone and a juror had a family member who died. He was dismissed right before they went in before deliberations.
Both jurors should have been dismissed right away and replaced with alternates.
It didn't matter as i lost the case.
Yeah we'll probably see this case pop up again in appeals court, this was messy and it goes to show that racial tensions are leaking into our justice system.
Racial tension has always been in the justice system, this only shows that some people are not willing to allow it to affect a trial in such a blatant manner.
Yep, attorney's will hang their hat, on anything problematic. This one's going to be appealed, and has a high probability of succeeding. Should have just called a mistrial, and start over. A new trial will happen anyways.
Are leaking? Seriously where have you been to think that all of a sudden racism is all of a sudden popping up in our justice system. So called racial tensions have been part of our justice system from even before day 1. There are literally supreme court decisions where in their opinion a justice wrote that there isn't a right for a black man that they have to follow. Just a few years ago in Dallas when a new DA took office he found a binder on jury selection that had been in use for several administrations before him on how to keep potential black & hispanic jurors off a jury and the only reason why this binder came to light is because the new DA was the first black DA in that county. Sorry to bust your bubble but racism in the judicial system has ALWAYS been there.
I saw a video of a white female police officer was shot in the face with her own gun by a guy a guy she was trying to arrest. It was on her body cam and also by a person filming it on their cell phone. The jury said they didn't believe it because they thought it had been altered. They came back with a not guilty verdict.
The reason there is always more than 12 jurors and that all sit in for the trial and are only chosen by random during the trial deliberations is over, there would be no grounds for appeal. This replacement during deliberations happens more than you think.
Does anyone want to bet a nickel that this ends up in a new trial? The judge missed the opportunity to figure out what was going on.
A judge removed the juror in the trial of Edwin Edwards (not for racism, but because juror refused to deliberate) he replaced the juror with an alternate and jury convicted. Withstood appeal.
Fast Eddie still ended up in Club Fed for ten years. He should have been in jail decades earlier, but at least karma finally caught up with him. Remember the juror who said, "It's his business what he do..." in one of Fast Eddie's earlier bribery and corruption trials?
After cities on fire during the BLM riots, how could the judge come to any other decision? What a bastion of jurisprudence and bravery!
I was on a jury where the foreman started deliberations by stating his view and that nothing would ever change his vote. He then said that the police discovered the gun and since he didn’t trust the police as far as he was concerned the gun didn’t exist.
sounds like the last jury I was on BTW I WILL EVER SERVE AGAIN the forewoman pulled that crap ..... our 1st vote was 11 -1 .... day by day people caved, thanksgiving was the day after the final 2 of us caved it was awful FYI I have served 3 other times w/o problems..... this was POST BLM ( it's called jury nullification.... IT DOES NOT MATTER what the truth is)
Steve, I just wish everybody would take their court cases to trial. That's how you stop the corrupt judicial system. That's how you bring it to a standing halt
About 2% of cases go to trial. I had a judge tell me if that even doubled to 4%, then the system would collapse. There was a period of a couple of years where no civil cases were tried in San Bernardino, CA because there were so many drug cases to try, and criminal cases have to be heard quickly in CA.
@@melvillecapps8339 the irony of it all is that the drug problem in California was started by the CIA and Oliver North.
So if I want to get out of jury duty I can just tell them I am racist?
My Dad, who I've never seen express a single racist thought, said that was his go-to to get out of jury duty.
It works. My go to is I don't trust cops or corporations.
Judge made a "decision" on what is racist... and was wrong...
I’ve always felt that the jury room should not be secret. In fact I think every juror should have to sit in a room alone after the verdict is agreed upon and write minimum one page explanation in support of their vote. What percentage of those papers would come back in crayon basically saying “I didn’t understand any of this stuff so I went with the majority”. I bet 15-20% EASY.
Perhaps, but a lot of people who might offer a valuable read on the testimony of witnesses, accusers or defendants in a verbal setting might struggle with making a written argument convincing. There are a lot of adults who you might call functionally literate ... they know their letters well enough to fill out paperwork, but if you ask them for an essay, you're going to get something at maybe fifth grade level.
You'd risk excluding or throwing into question the validity of the input from a lot of people with that idea.
Juries may have just outlived its relevance as a judicial institution.
Couldn't the judge have individually polled the other 10 jurors about who said what?
He interviewed 5 before reaching a conclusion. I assume their stories were consistent enough the other 5 were unlikely to give an honest substantislly different version.
That culture will always band together against the others,
Imagine if the roles in this were reversed. If it was a predominantly white jury, and a black person stood up and said they were defending the downtrodden black people, because whitey was trying to railroad them, and convict an innocent black person. This cannot stand, and an entirely new jury should be brought in.
Yes, race is an issue (i wish it wasn't, but it is). If you cannot tell who is railroading who in the jury, you must start over with a new jury. Because the jury has just proven that they cannot be impartial. And the shenanigans in the jury room have surely tainted even the jurors who might have originally been able to keep a level head initially.
It sounds like both of the jurors were allowing hard racial bias to influence their decisions, but one was willing to lie about it outside of deliberations, while the other was stupid enough to explicitly state it to the judge in front of the rest of the court. The outcome is not surprising at all. Hopefully, a lesson was learned here.
Let change it a bit. Guy say the person is guilty bc they are black and the say no and tells the judge they were sticking up for black people. Are the both racist? Stand up to racism isn't racism
Agree, it sounds like the black was the actual racist here. At the very least the judge should have remove both of them or neither. Not removing both just screams racial bias on the judges part and honestly shameful to hear that the judge acted that way.
@@Unknown-qp9ur The US system is biased towards the defense not the prosecution.
@@frozendragon498 Sounds like the judge is a racist too.
@@palladin9479😂😂😂😂😂😂not any more
Ok, I'll draw on my past experiences... A white woman in a room of predominately black people saying racist things? Or, a black person in a room of predominately black people saying racist things?
That would be totally not normal. I smell an immediate request for a mistrial.
Interesting, one never thinks of things like this. I could see absolutely why this was done.
I love how the judge gets rid of the juror that the prosecutor did not like.
And the reasons for dislike seem pretty valid.
@@RoSaWa386-33well he said she said. So if you believe the juror who said F you then yes. Racism racism racism everywhere but only seems to go one way. A white woman outnumbered in a closed room must be pretty brave.
The prosecutor also said they were fine with removing the other juror if there was evidence of racial bias. A racial statement is not necessarily an indication of bias. Example. Yeah he is a rich old white guy, what does that have to do with the facts? Example2: of course poor black people aren't charged with this. They do not have the connections or money to commit these acts.
Reminds me of the racist jury against the poor officer doing his job with the drug overdose death of what’s his face….
Me thinking back in the day 60 Minutes and such had black people on saying they would stand up for black people and wouldn't vote in a jury to convict a black person, even if guilty.
White's who obviously murdered black people in the south used to get acquitted all the time by all white juries. People tend to protect their own.
Makes one think we should be standing up for white people on juries but don't say it out loud. "Evidence just doesn't add up" "I'm not convinced" etc
Sounds like judge should be removed to 4 x 8 cell.
I was on a jury where are juror was removed during deliberations, because he's suddenly remembered that his wife was murdered.
After five weeks of testimony and two days of deliberations, he suddenly remembered that his wife had been murdered. He jumped up and went to get the bailiff, who took him to see the judge. Next thing we know, we've got the alternate.
Thankfully we're did reach a verdict.
Was it the correct verdict?
Wow. So if that didn't come up during the jury selection process, that's some SERIOUS blocking out of memories. Of course, we deal with harsh reality that way sometimes. I'll forget about a lost loved one (decades ago) for weeks, and then suddenly it will hit me, sometimes with massive sadness from a song or whatever.
It must be interesting, being a trial judge.
@@RicardoSantos-oz3uj - indeed it was.
@@rogergeyer9851 - Once it was explained, it actually made sense:
They were separated. His wife had left him for another man, and he'd moved across the country. At some point, he found out the other man had killed his wife, and the divorce never became final.
And all that happened 30-some years earlier.
So it's not really as crazy as it - what am I saying? It's still guano psychotic.
@@rogergeyer9851 -- I had a roommate 12 years ago who simply does not remember the dog she owned at the time. I recently asked if she had any pictures of him (by name), and she had no idea what I was talking about. Even when I reminded her of what he looked like, what breed he was, etc., she denied ever having that dog or any dog of that breed. (And it wasn't like she was being technical and trying to say it was someone else's dog or something -- she had blocked him out of her memory for some reason.)
I used to work in a courthouse, and I saw this exactly once. The juror came in pre-disposed, and let the foreman know that as soon as she was able.
The problem I have with all of this is that I need to know the specific context before I would say that saying "I'm sticking up for white people" is problematic. In current year it is all too acceptable to openly disparage white people, especially if you are a PoC. So if her claim that the other juror was using euphemisms or epithets to imply "whiteness" is part of the problem being deliberated on, or part of the evidence against the defendant, then her statements would actually be ANTI-racist and the other juror would be the racist in this case.
Or, we can assume the judge wasn't a complete moron and asked more than two questions. Sometimes you can take the words at face value, and somebody who said a pretty racist thing might actually just be racist and not some maligned martyr for the poor overwhelmed crackers of america.
Well then I guess this sets a precedent, I'm sure nobody ever said they're standing up for black ppl...
Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation/identity, and political views should not be used to determine guilt or innocence.
I have been on a couple of juries where the deliberations got pretty testy and loud, but never to the extent of using obscenities.
The nature of jury duty ensures that the people who serve on juries are reasonably respectable citizens.
thank you
My question why didn’t he interview all the jurors individually? There were 10 other people in that room 🤔
He interviewed 5 others. I assume the 5 had a consistent story so he didn't feel the need to interview everyone.
@@charlesreid9337 he was pretty clear this is a valid reason for removal.
@@charlesreid9337 Ah, there we are. I was wondering why he was acting as if there were only 2 jurors in that room.
Ben Hundo's propped up by the Barrister Dog, 2nd shelf, right side (at the right end of the California TURBINE license plate)
Getting into your "how do you tell who is telling the truth?" question. I was watching Jury selection (I was one of the extras that was eventually released). This was for a criminal case. The District Attorney looked at Juror number 8, dropped his pencil, then said "Juror number 8, you were out in the hall and Juror number 6 told you that I dropped my pencil. Do you have any trouble believing his testimony?" That DA was lucky I wasn't Juror number 8, because I was thinking - well, didn't you plead not guilty to dropping your pencil? Now I have 2 conflicting pieces of information, which one do you want me to believe? Told that story to an Attorney/litigator buddy whoses response was "Damn".
I remember a story my grandfather told me in his later years.
As part of the backstory, my grandfather was the head of engineering for a manufacturing organization when I was a kid. His company was sued for product liability. I remember the case went on for years as it went through discovery, motions, and finally a trial. They ended up with very limited liability, blaming misuse as a major part of the cause of injury. It was very stressful for my grandfather as he was part owner and good friends with the other partners.
Many years later he was in Voir Dire on a criminal case. The judge was asking each juror about previous contact with the justice system before each side would go, so he had his answers prepared for when they got to him. He explained about being the defendant in a multi-year product liability lawsuit.
The judge then asked "What do you think of the judicial system?"
"It's pretty good except for the lawyers."
That got a laugh out of many, and a follow up "Why do you say that."
"Because only lawyers can know nothing and you pay them hundreds of dollars an hour while they learn. Lawyers know the law, but they don't know anything about engineering, product design, and definitely nothing about the product. Engineers start the same way too, knowing the basics, but they know they won't win a project unless they understand far more. So an engineer learns on their own dime, but lawyers make hundreds of dollars an hour to learn anything relevant about the case."
More laughs, and he did end up on the jury.
@@matthewbeasley7765: That's interesting. I took a "problem solving and decision making" course as part of my career at a large corporation. A key part of the decision making process for complex business decisions was letting a group of experts "fight it out" (verbally), for days sometimes, with a moderator to keep things on track and record key things agreed on.
The moderator didn't have to have a CLUE about the technical content -- only keeping the process on track.
But with juries, the people trying to decide on the veracity of "expert witnesses" have only the questions asked and their experience to decide...
@@charlesreid9337 I'll take a "damn" from a very high end litigator to your "except he didn't" any day. In the setting we were in, that is exactly what was being discussed - testimony against the accused who had plead not guilty. "Damn".
Can someone tell me information to find more literature about this trial. I would like to do a little more digging into what led to this trial.
Ben inspecting the Barrister Dog's robe.
If you do a google search on barrister and judges robes for the UK, the colors and length of wig on Steve's dog is actually for a Judge.
So do we keep calling him a barrister?
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 I think in my first 2 or 3 comments I did call him a Judge Dog but then I fell in with Barrister Dog when Steve and others used that term. (I still think of him as a Judge Dog though.😀)
@@idristaylor5093 I've been calling him Barrister dog, but have had several comments re him being a Judge and sure enough research backs that up, And I too now think of him as Judge, hence the quandary.
I think I'll stick to Barrister Dog otherwise no one will know what I'm on about and it sort of upsets the Lawyer dog vibe, A guy asking for a Judge Dog just hasn't the same meaning from the story behind it.
Thanks for your input.
I was an alternate on a case and replaced a juror during deliberations. During deliberations it came to light that the juror lied on the questioneer during jury selection. They jury sent a note to the judge and he was dismissed
I think there should be a misttial and the whole jury thrown out and the case be retried with a completely new jury. This jury is completely tainted.
I'm going to preach from the bible of Jury Nullification if I'm ever called to serve on a jury again.
There are more than 2 people in the jury during deliberation, so a "he said/she said" could be resolved rather quickly by consensus.
Not when the judge says he is scared of being cancelled, or racial groups circle wagons.
Reality and truth are not decided by consensus.
@@MrBlueBurd0451 The point is that there were up to 10 other jurors present when the alleged exchange of racist statements occurred. They can be interviewed individually, outside the intimidating group dynamic, to help determine whether what *he* said is true, or whether what *she* said is true. The judge should do more than just interview the two jurors in question.
@@karenpojar2514
Sober up, Karen.
@@joesterling4299 That would help determine, but it doesn't necessarily succeed in getting to the truth if the others cover for a sentiment they share.
Extream and blatant corruption at every level.
Too much of the legal system, and the political system, is based on assuming people are honest and have good intentions for people other than themselves. The addition of body cams on cops speaks to the need to change this assumption. So it seems reasonable, to me, that if the court room is recorded, the jury deliberation room should also be recorded.
I was really questioning "why isn't this recorded"?
It feels like recording it would make sense. Knowing how the jury came to their conclusion.
@@gierrah That defeats the entire purpose of having a jury of one's peers decide their fate.
@@snex000 How so?
It just leaves behind a record. How does that affect anything other than us knowing what happened inside the room
@@gierrah Ever heard of retaliation? Juries need to be able to speak completely freely. It's not the judge's job to decide if the jury members are deciding things "fairly" or not. The jury are the ultimate arbiters once they have gone into deliberations.
@@snex000 the record existing is important. It doesn't have to be viewed unless necessary, but it should still exist, for any case where it could be necessary.
If there were absolute proof with no question of what was said, then it would be easy to dismiss jurors without controversy. But currently there are many people in these comments saying "I don't believe she was lying" or defending her statements believing the other person was lying, based solely on this retelling by the news story and Steve.
Know what would quash any credible theories of a judge being biased to who could be telling the truth?
If the truth was actually known.
How do you determine?...ASK THE OTHER 10 JURORS!
Ben behind the dog to Steves right side.
To be fair if I was in trial in Atlanta, Albany or Columbus I wouldn't want a black jury. In my small town I trust them. Ran into far to many racists blacks in Atlanta, Albany or Columbus. Far to many look at it as their chance to get pay back for "racism" by being racists.
Only time I've been called in for JD was actually this year and we were discharged immediately after selection, here though no alternates, but instead whole trial had to be adjourned and a new jury empanelled, rather miffed about it still as to why that had happened (do not question the judge's decision though if defence had put forward an objection to the member sooner that would have been great for everyone involved.
One of my fellow jurors stated that "He is a man, he is guilty". Proud to say I hung that jury.
Ben closely following M'Lud Barrister Dog, Steve's LHS
G’nite Bob.
@@user-no1cares Mornin' Bill
If you are to judge somebody based on your life experiences. How can a poor person judge a rich person. Their life experiences are completely different. Thus, how they view the world is different.
How this hasn't been declared a mistrial is beyond me.
Because you can't say that the verdict was impacted with any level of certainty. It may be sent back for a retrial, but when you've got a juror that has a credibility issue, there is no easy solution. Also keep in mind that this was a 9 week trial. As in extremely expensive and depending upon the actual verdict, it might not even matter. If the jury votes to acquit, then chances are that the juror didn't have any sort of impact on the proceeding. It's when they find the defendant guilty of various things that it could be an issue.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Good point about the judge hoping the case goes away.
I'm suspecting that is what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. There was so much prosecutorial misconduct that should have been a dismissal with prejudice. (Just stating that Kyle taking the 5th proves he's guilty should have been enough by itself.) But doing so would make the judge the target of ire for many who were on one side of a highly charged politicized case. The judge was hoping a jury would make the case go away without him having to be the "bad guy." But since the jury came back not guilty, the judge didn't have to make any hard rulings.
@matthewbeasley7765
Binger was an ass. He outdid himself when he picked up the rifle and aimed it at the jury.
@@THall-vi8cp I'm so disappointed that no jurors reacted. I would have hit the floor, and then asked the judge to instruct Binger to stop pointing the gun at me.
I'll bet we could look at the two jurors' social media posts and determine who was telling the truth. And, statistically...
Rich, white and entitled.... pushing for a conviction based upon that is horrible on it's face.
And according to multiple ppl, it never happened.
@@choccolocco Did the people that say it didn't happen also happen to be the same race as the person who was accused of saying it? I'd bet any amount of money they were. This whole thing stinks and honestly should probably have a change of venue at this point.
@@ZboeC5
Was that racist juror your wife??
You ppl can’t help yourselves, can you?
Seems like an abuse of power to remove a juror for their opinions after the jury selection process and the trial has taken place.
If they had already agreed on a verdict for 8 of the 9 charges, his justification of not deliberating doesn't hold water. I see a potential appeal
There were dozens of charges.
There were a lot more charges to consider. There were 135 counts in the indictment. There were originally 7 defendants. Most of them rolled on the two involved in this trial.
There’s no telling what real racism is playing out in that jury room….but, I bet I know what it is…
How would they know the juror lied? Is it recorded?
It was the opinion of the judge
Other jurors were interveiwed. Aka eye witnesses.
@@scott_johnson_ Opinions are not facts. The judge must have had some proof besides his opinion.
@@RicardoSantos-oz3uj No, not necessarily. In court juries are the finders of fact. Judges make rulings based on opinion and in the interest of fairness. That's they way it works.
This makes no sense, wouldn't the judge have to question all 12, not just the two?
I'm in my 6th decade of life. Throughout my time the nation around me seemed to be moving less and less racist. Beginning around 2008 it began creeping back into our society. In 2016 the return of this bigotry skyrocketed and racism became a deeply uncomfortable norm. Those who harbored these hateful, evil emotions, for *_some inexplicable reason,_* felt empowered to express these views again in song, writings, blogs and vlogs. They expressed it with protest signs and t-shirt iron-ons. They expressed it with violence.
And this deeply evil expression hasn't ceased or been abated and I believe is still spreading. I have no doubt racism has been expressed during jury deliberations many times in the past just like other racist actions we've seen. Most were in a more distant past. I would bet that this manner of expressing internal evil, as all the others, has increased lately as well.
Trump and his cult have brought hate back in full force.
The truth is the rise in animus is because of Trump. When he was campaigning...and as President.. he was a vile, nasty, mysoginist, and racist..giving people who had these feelings, thoughts and animosity towards others, FULL LICENSE to be their true selves, and to be open about their thinking and feelings against people they considered "less than".
Yeah. The equality we achieved toward the end of the last century is not good enough for some people. They want retribution, and "compensation" for atrocities that their dead ancestors suffered at the hands of the dead ancestors of other people. They want privilege, exactly what they accuse another race of having. They want social superiority. Pushback against that kind of racism ironically also gets called "racism."
It probably still is. The big thing that's changed is that it's more heavily covered. I'm in my 40s and it was always there and not really getting that much better very quickly. There was a period before I was born roughly the '40s through the '70s where it was improving dramatically. But, since then there hasn't been much improvement and these issues are mostly used by the wealthy to distract from the increased income inequality.
Which is to be expected. Most of the work and progress that was really necessary was completed by then. By the '70s you had college educated black couples making more than white college educated white couples. And while there were definitely still issues with racism, the bulk of the necessary progress had been made. Going forward, there just wasn't the same easy projects to undertake and when you do largely achieve your goals, the infrastructure pushing it doesn't just go away. I think the only time that ever happened was when the March of Dimes largely stopped doing anything with Polio as it wasn't an issue and started to focus more broadly.
For the most part, the sort of extreme views that lead to that impression are far less common than people think, they just get amplified by social media companies trying to keep people engaged with their site and the news media that hasn't had so little respect for the news in decades.
You mean the BLM and Antifa riots of 2020?
That is why the judge gets the decision and it can be appealed…social media commenters don’t get to decide.
Ben behind the Barrister dawg on the right.
Saying those words is as racist as saying "It' okay to be white."
I don't think racism means much anymore.
Why wasn't the other juror removed for saying the defendant deserves to be found guilty for being white and rich?
But when the juror's in OJ's case did the same no one batted an eye.
Sounds like if the defendant was black, he would have a pretty favorable jury.
Could you imagine a black person being thrown off a jury for saying they were standing up for black people? Of course not.
Of course i can imagine that. What fictional world do you live in?
No that’s racist. Why are you racist?
I've heard one of the judge's tasks described as "finder of fact".
When there is no jury. IE, a bench trial.
How did they figure who was lying, it was literally just "he said, she said". Did the judge even ask the other jurors what was said in the room?
What if the situation was reversed?
What if a black juror told a judge that a white juror said a black defendant should he convicted just because he's black, and that he was standing up for black people by coming forward? Then what if, when asked, the white juror denied the allegations, and so the black juror was dismissed?
That black juror (if any black juror at all) would have never made it past Jury selection.
Essentially the twelve jurors vote. I suppose it's possible the majority of jurors are lying instead.
In the original article, 5 other jurors were interviewed in addition to the two involved in the argument.
So jury nullification has acceptable parameters? I'm bringing this up for arguments sake, not because I think that racism is a good cause for nullification.
I mean that's a good way to get a conviction. Just remove the holdout.
The time to remove a juror for opinions on either juror involved way was before the trial when picking the jury not during deliberations, will be a mess on appeal. I don't care if the judge got the he said she said position on this right or wrong they should be hands off at that point as this is basically picking the verdict removing a juror in the way of it. At worst if no one is removed they get a hung jury on some counts & can re do the trial without injecting race into it & at best they can get an actual verdict. What they get now is a horribly tainted verdict picked by the judge.
If you have a juror saying the defendent was "rich white and entitled"
Why wasn't that juror removed?
Supposedly that was the lie. Also, that may have been factual.
I find it funny though that the one thing that the removed juror held unto was the "white" part and not the two other things that are much worse (rich and entitled).
So here's my most likely to have happened
One juror, probably black, says "rich white and entitled" so I'm going to convict [based on skin colour]. That's racist.
The other juror reacts to that.
The amswer to your question was covered in the story. You can watch it again if you dont believe the other person who responded to you.
@@MaxxJagX So if a juror says I'm going to convict because they are poor black and from the hood?
That's just as racist.
The judge asked that juror if he said that. And the juror obviously said “Nuh uh!”
So the judge chose to throw the original guy out.
I was on a Wayne County trial where deliberations started at 11 to 1 for innocence (I was the single guilty vote). By the end of 2 days I swayed all 11 fellow jurors. Good times.
I sincerely hope you didn't make a mistake. If 11 jurors were leaning toward not guilty, and I was convinced of guilt, I'd want to know I wasn't screwing up someone's life with a false guilty verdict.
@@TheRealScooterGuy no mistake at all, after the trial, the deputy and judge came back and congratulated us on our decision. (After the judge had left, the deputy told us that the dude had written an apology to the judge admitting what he had done)
Ben's behind dog statue
Can she be sued for not being honest up front at the initial jury selection and wasting everyone's time?
Unlikely there case is circumstantial