Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's a jackass move by a juror. But, really, did it matter? Who says she read teh paper? And was there even an article about the case? (in fact, a quick search of the Post archives shows two articles about the case--one from the first day of trial and one from the day the verdict was reached.)
|
I'm not opining on whether it mattered to the verdict. The point is she was instructed not to read the paper and then asked whether she had, and she lied. Whether or not there was an article is more an issue for the judge in his decision to throw out the verdict or not on that basis. I don't know the standard, so I can't say whether he made the right call. But it's certainly not for a juror to decide in her discretion that it's not a heavily covered case and therefore it's okay to defy the judge's orders. Did she think the instructions were meaningless? The fact is that (i) it could have mattered, hence the prophylactic instructions, and (ii) because of her actions, the judge threw out the verdict and the county has to pay for another trial.
Really, it was the last day -- she couldn't hold out for her horoscope for one more day?
