Well, taking my own second look through the thread, I decided it was time to find out, for myself, both sides of the story. I feel that there is no battle to be won here, as both sides of this arguement seem fairly deep-rooted. My only hope is that certain feelings expressed are not severely contagious, or irreversible in the long-term. However, these make for a good read, if nothing else:
Judge William Young's memorandum (PDF reader required. I'd post it for those who may not have a .pdf reader, but it is about 40 pages long):
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=young/pdf/luisi%20memorandum.pdfJuror No. 2's rebuttal of the judge's memorandum with an alternate recollection of the proceedings:
http://dangeroustalkblog.blogspot.com/The proceedings according to Thomas R. Eddlem, and defense of his actions during deliberation (the 'problem juror,' or 'juror no. 2.'):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem20.htmlOpinionated: Thomas R. Eddlem's follow-up essay on the condition of the the justice system in the United States (this is, I suppose, the "soapbox" so many here have claimed he stood on in court, but
he didn't publish this until after the event):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem24.htmlMy disclaimer: Yes, I acknowledge that some of these links go to what some here may consider 'revolution wookie' sites. I also understand that CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are very unlikely to pick up on this story, as it does nothing for ratings (it falls a bit short of the glory of Hollywood garbage). This does not invalidate the credibility of the authors nor their documents. The essays/memorandum are, for the most part, well written in that they contain both accounts of the proceedings (though, at forty-something pages, Judge Young's version is somewhat longer). Click on them and read them, or don't. It won't hurt my feelings. But if you do read them, make sure you don't have anything breakable near your person. Not far into my reading of Young's memorandum, I wanted to throw my keyboard across the room (admittedly, I could not read all of it in one sitting, and maybe I will finish it when my blood pressure has returned to normal levels). [Pure-blooded Americans beware.]Interestingly enough, Eddlem (Juror No. 2) defends against accusations that he even attempted to engage in "jury nullification." Yet, I am compelled to believe he would have been right even if he had done so.
My secondary disclaimer: Despite my best attempts, I was unable to find an official transcript of "United States vs. Robert Luisi." There could be any number of reasons for this. The transcript may still not have been uploaded/leaked to the internet. It is also possible that, because of all the 'problems', an entirely new proceeding (and therefore a new transcript) may have been required. But, I don't know how that works. I do plan to read finish reading Young's memorandum (at least for informative purposes), but given the parts that I have read, and taking into consideration its length, there is now little doubt in my mind that
someone in the courtroom may have been standing on a soapbox.
Consider this post my concession to a draw.
