Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Al Norris on January 04, 2008, 09:44:39 AM

Title: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: Al Norris on January 04, 2008, 09:44:39 AM

Massachusetts Jury's Racial Attitudes Questioned

Briefly, a MA judge has issued a summons to recall the entire jury that convicted a man of murder. His reasoning is that based upon the statements of 3 jurors, the verdict was reached after racial remarks were made in the deliberation room. A racially mixed jury panel convicted the man 12-0, so it seems that any remarks that made, had no real infuence upon the decision.

Now, a year later the judge wants to question the entire panel in open court as to what happened during deliberations.

I have several problems eith this. Not the least of which, goes to the chilling affect on all juries, that their deliberations are theirs and not whatever some judge thinks it should be.

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: HankB on January 04, 2008, 10:17:15 AM

"I don't recall" is the only answer that judge ought to get.

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: K Frame on January 04, 2008, 11:01:43 AM

Actually, the judge has a definite right and duty to investigate this.

That sort of information getting out is classic grounds for an appeal by the defendant and the judge would be remiss in not looking into it.

Jury deliberations may be secret, but the secrecy is not, by any stretch of the imagination, absolute.

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: Al Norris on January 04, 2008, 06:51:14 PM

Mike, I don't have a problem with the judge "looking into this." The problem I have is that the summons is for an open court hearing.

Calling each juror into chambers for a private deposition is a far cry from putting them on the stand publicly. How could future jury panels possibly deliberate in an open and honest manner, should they know that their every word or gesture be questioned in public view, after the trial is long over?

Having been a juror (albeit not in a murder trial), I have a good idea what goes on during deliberations. If this were to become the norm, I would be reduced to uttering "guilty" or "not guilty" and ignoring everything else. No deliberation. No trying to argue my reasoning to another who may be wavering. Nothing. Nada.

At which point, what need for a jury?

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: K Frame on January 05, 2008, 11:48:12 AM

Ah, OK, I didn't catch the fact that your concern was with the open court nature of the proceeding.

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: Chris on January 05, 2008, 06:44:52 PM

Problem is that a judge has limited investigative powers.  Which makes sense since judges aren't in the investigation business.  A summons is the tool a judge uses to force someone to come to court.  Can only issue a summons for an opn hearing.  This is the result.  It would probably be best if the judge had referred the matter to the prosecutor for investigation, or appointed a special prosecutor for that purpose.

To be honest, this is the purpose of the public defender's office having investigators on staff, to investigate claims of this nature so that the PD can file appropriate motions to get the case back into court.  If the judge finds new evidence requiring the case to be re-opened, the judge has now become a witness, necessitating that the matter be turned over to a second judge to preside over, mucking up two courts in the process.  Should have referred it out, and avoided all of the headaches.  At least then, it would likely be a special grand jury, and thus protected.

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 05, 2008, 07:24:12 PM

Okay, so it was an ignorant judge.  That I believe. 

Title: Re: MA Judge summons Jury to the Stand.
Post by: ilbob on January 08, 2008, 06:20:52 AM

Quote from: Al Norris on January 04, 2008, 08:44:39 AM

Massachusetts Jury's Racial Attitudes Questioned

Briefly, a MA judge has issued a summons to recall the entire jury that convicted a man of murder. His reasoning is that based upon the statements of 3 jurors, the verdict was reached after racial remarks were made in the deliberation room. A racially mixed jury panel convicted the man 12-0, so it seems that any remarks that made, had no real infuence upon the decision.

Now, a year later the judge wants to question the entire panel in open court as to what happened during deliberations.

I have several problems eith this. Not the least of which, goes to the chilling affect on all juries, that their deliberations are theirs and not whatever some judge thinks it should be.

My answer is "so what"? I am not sure what is meant by racial remarks, but IMO juries can make their deliberations based on whatever criteria they so chose. I hope some higher court comes down on this guy like a ton of bricks.