Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

December 19, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly or maybe my head is just screwed on wrong, but isn’t the holdout juror (your column indicates that she is a female), by refusing to even discuss the case, violating her oath as a juror?

If she doesn’t want to convict and the other 11 do…so be it. Let Paul Howard retry the “hotdog” lovers. That is just the cost of American justice. But by refusing to discuss the case or to listen to the points-of-view of the other jurors, this juror is thwarting the jury system…in my judgment, at least, eleven months and 29 days worth!

Whatever we do, let’s don’t let the “fleas” in the General Assembly get involved!

By CJ

December 19, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

Jim’s suggestions to reduce the number of jurors required to secure a criminal conviction and to replace a juror who “refuses to deliberate” are frightening.

First, whether or not a juror is refusing to deliberate is subjective. If a juror honestly believes that a defendant is either guilty or innocent and refuses to vote against his or her conscience, fellow jurors might argue that that person is “refusing to deliberate”. In fact, that person may have deliberated, taken into account the majority’s arguments, and then reached a decision. Allowing a judge to replace a juror under these circumstances would undermine honest and open debate and deliberations if any juror feels undue pressure to reach a decision that he or she wouldn’t otherwise make. A defendant could not get a fair trial under these circumstances.

In addition, innocent people are frequently convicted, even under our current system requiring unanimous verdicts. In fact, it is estimated that hundreds have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit and thousands of innocent people are languishing in our prisons right now – some on death row. Wrongful convictions can and do occur because of false confessions, mistaken eyewitness identifications, police mistakes or misconduct, prosecutorial mistakes or misconduct, unreliable informants, inadequate defense attorneys, unqualified forensics labs or forensic lab misconduct. Jim’s ideas are likely to increase the number of wrongful convictions.

The documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning” (available through NetFlix) tells the story of a 15-year old arrested and prosecuted for a murder he didn’t commit. Two Jacksonville, Florida police officers picked the boy up when they saw him walking across the street from the murder scene a few hours after the crime. He was on his way to Blockbuster Video to pickup a job application. The police put him in the back seat of their car, purportedly to ask him some questions, and drove him to the murder scene. The victim’s husband saw the boy sitting in the back of the car and immediately identified him as the shooter. The police later took the boy out in the woods and beat a false confession out of him (mistaken eyewitness, police misconduct, false confession). The movie documents the work of the defense attorney that represented the innocent 15-year old boy, who was being tried as an adult.

Our country’s founders based our justice system on the predicate that it’s better to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. This principle preceded them by hundreds of years and was appropriately implemented when our State developed a criminal justice system in which jury decisions finding defendants guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be unanimous. Implementing Jim’s ideas to undermine this timeless principle in order to protect against any who would “lie to get on juries”, in my opinion, would be a hell of a lot less civil than interrupting Paul Wolfowitz when he’s making a speech.

By Brian Curtis

December 19, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

I’m not seeing the need for new legislation. Refusal to deliberate should simply be treated as contempt of court, period.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

December 19, 2006 08:13 AM | Link to this

Dang.

I was right there with you up until the Wolfie comment Jim.

I’m sure it’s the aim of BushCo to set this fire and then walk away from it without accepting the least little bit of accountability for their actions (where’s Cheney been?).

Paul Wolfowitz should be reminded of the consequences of his actions at every step he takes for the rest of his life. If it means disrupting his ivory tower perch ocassionally, then so be it.

By Jim Wooten

December 19, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

CJ, you’re in fine form this morning. Philosopher, DA Howard tells of cases where jurors simply refuse to participate and he thinks adding the language to permit the judge to substitute a juror during deliberations would largely address the problem.

By Spaceman109

December 19, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

jim jim jim….very whiny and emotional column this morning.

verdicts in criminal cases should always be unanimous ones. this is what sets the u.s. apart from other countries.

also, you referred to the u.s. constitution as a living document. i seem to recall that supreme court justice scalia is adamant that said document should be interpreted according to what the writers wanted; this is referred to as “original intent”. it appears you are in serious disagreement with justice scalia on that concept.

ooooooooooops :)

By Wooten Republicans Love Lenin/Marx

December 19, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

You betcha Jimster,

Hell, why don’t we just do away with ALL jurors and let the Politburro decide guilt? Lenin and Marx would love ya, sugar-britches.

Why is it that pseudo-cons like Jimster and his coven of Republi-witches always want to throw away the efforts of generations of our forefathers without a wimper? These fascists can’t seem to comprehend that our legal system is literally built on thousands of years of trial and error dealing with millions of events between people and the resolutions that worked were kept and became our system of laws.

Pseudo-cons are so full of themselves that they imagine they know better than hundreds of generations of our ancestors. They have no respect for elders, tradition, individual rights, or dissent. Intractability is their trademark; profit at the expense of society is their motivation.

Republicans are the leeches of the political world and remain America’s worst citizens. I’d sooner trust a crack-ho than a Republican pundit; afterall, the crack-ho is only destroying themself and their own family, while the Republican wishes to destroy the very fabric of society so that they can scavenge the spoils!

By Lkwerkski

December 19, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

That arrogant, smartaleck, ignorant little twerp Dan McLagan is an insult to the people his boss serves. But, it’a all too typical of the contempt Sonny Perdue holds the people of Georgia in. Admit lyiing about the the sweetheart tax deal Sonny,the election’s over and nobody believed you anyway.

By Spaceman109

December 19, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

distrcit attorney howard does not go far enough….jurors who refuse to deliberate should not only be replaced; they should also be charged with comtempt of court. this, in my view, would firmly address the problem without messing with the concept of unanimous verdict.

anything less than unanimous verdicts in criminal cases would move us closer to mob rule.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Refusal to deliberate may well be contempt of court, but how do you get over the hurdle that CJ presents about that decision being subjective? If the holdout juror acts like a political leftist and says they don’t care about the facts, just their feelings, then it’s easy, but if they claim to have listened to the evidence and made their decision and you take them off because they don’t agree with the majority you’re really taking us down a dangerous path.

CJ,

In fact, it is estimated that hundreds have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit

Would you mind expanding on that a little? Maybe naming the estimator, the wrongly executed, and the time frames you’re talking about.

By Mid-South Philosopher

December 19, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

As a follow-up Jim,

I don’t believe you are calling for what CJ is warning us against…any number less than 12 members of a “jury of our peers” deciding a case. That, of course, I would oppose.

However, given the need for a “shock treatment” for the vast majority of public “jury pools,” I will concede that the provision of authority for the trial judge to replace a juror, “reluctant to participate in the jury deliberation process” would be a valuable tool for the court system.

I just get very nerverous when anything of importance is brought up before a legislative body composed, predominantly, of “politicians”, even though they have been duly elected!

They do much better work, for example, debating and deciding that “grits” will be the “state prepared food” and that “Official State Beef Barbeque Cook-Off” will be held in Hawkinsville each year.

Incidentally, all sarcasm aside, the “Beef Barbeque Cook-Off” raises money for the Civitan International Reseach Center and Camp Civitan. Guess the legislature does do some good from time to time.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 19, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

The Wolfowitz protestors have absolutely nothing to do with our court system and jury trials - what a moronic attempt to pursue your moronic neo-con(federate) agenda.

By Curious Observer

December 19, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

I once served on a civil jury in a case in which it was clear that the plantiff had no grounds for recovering damages from the defendant—in fact, the plantiff was at fault in the incident. Eleven jurors saw it that way. One declared that he would not allow “an insurance company to get away without paying anything,” no matter who was at fault in the accident. He refused to consider any of the arguments of his fellow jurors.

It was quite clear that this juror lied in declaring that he could be impartial in judging the merits of the case. He was obviously biased against insurance companies. Yet, the requirement of a unanimous verdict effectively brought an end to the trial and further expense for the taxpayers in the form of a future retrial.

Jurors ought to have a mechanism by which they can report a refusal to deliberate to the trial judge, and trial judges need the discretion to disqualify a juror who will not deliberate. It is one thing for a juror, after considering all evidence and all points of view, to hold fast to a decision. It is quite another when that juror refuses to deliberate from the start.

I reject Wooten’s suggestion that criminal cases might be decided by less than a unanimous jury decision. After all, who knows when a single juror’s decision may ultimately be the correct one? At the same time, I believe that there needs to be more latitude in disqualifying jurors whose service is fraudulent from the start.

By Jack

December 19, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

I agree with CJ on this one. If a juror decides that he or she does not want to give a guilty or innocent verdict than yes I believe that one of the alternant jurors that was their for the entire case should take that jurors spot. I beleive that a juror has a responsibility to give some kind of decision of what he or she believes is a proper verdict in a case. You cannot just be ignorant, hard-headed and stubborn and say that you as a juror refuses to give some kind of verdict whether it be guilty or innocent. This is the reason why alternant jurors should be required to sit in on an entire case.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

I don’t think we should be altering the the concept of unanimous juries for criminal cases.

I disagree with CJ’s theory that jurors have the right to remain silent. Jurors are expected to be able to voice their opinions in favor of innocence and guilt and persuade the other jurors of their position.

The theme of the minority voice having been empowered beyond the norms of society is an important one, but I don’t know that this jury case is really a good example of this problem. We don’t know enough about the juror’s motives.

People who disrupt speeches and shout down speakers should be arrested for disorderly conduct. Students who do that at Universities should also have their butts kicked out of school.

Unfortunately the Universities enable this bad conduct more often than not, as they are too intimidated to take action or actually side with the (invariably Leftist) protesters.

If nothing else, schools should be teaching that anarchy is not an acceptable form of discourse in a civilized society, and particularly in a Representative Republic where we have a process to have our opinions heard.

By sakldfl;

December 19, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

The Georgia Constitution and U.S. Constitution and the legal code are living documents to the extent that living people properly change them to address the evolution of the civic compact.

I’m saving this for the next time you start on a rant about the constitutional right to privacy/abortion or the evolving standards of decency/death penalty.

By Fall Line

December 19, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

In this case, the justice system works. The jury failed to reach a verdict and the DA has decided to try the case again. It’s expensive, yes, but it works. If the DA felt that the jury deadlocked because his case was weak, then he would have dropped the case and justice would have been done. Sometimes justice requires patience and perserverance.

By Reece

December 19, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

To start with, I was really hoping to see the AJC cover this story much more aggressively than just a Jim Wooten op-ed piece. I think that this juror should be exposed for the dastardly person that they are. The judge should have jailed this person for contempt and left them jailed until the verdict is read in the retrial of these two hooligans.

Paul Howard should introduce legislation allowing for the replacement of a juror that “refuses to deliberate”. Additionally, he should investigate this juror as thoroughly as he would a murder suspect and if there are financial or other irregularities he should prosecute for that. In my opinion he should currently have that juror in custody for contempt of court, making it that much easier to question the juror and to proceed with an investigation.

We should not even consider changing to a less than unanimous verdict for any crime. That would ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. I’ve never been on trial but I know that I want it to be 12-0. Jim seems to be as big of a proponent of dismantling the US Constitution as his hero George W. Bush. What a mumser.

Jim’s little WMD (weapon of mass distraction) about Woflowitz is just what I’ve come to expect from him. Wolfowitz should be strung up by his thumbs. That’s the American way now, (Thinking)Right?

By S

December 19, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

I don’t necessarily like that idea. And what happens if a juror still comes to the same conclusion after being forced to deliberate? Are we going to replace him in order to obtain favorable results? It may be that the one holdout is right and the other 11 are wrong.

I say declare a mistrial and let’s do again. If the prosecutions case is that tight, the new jury will do the do…

By time for the truth

December 19, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

The antics of this ignorant and dishonest juror is one of the best arguments I’ve seen in years for the swift reintroduction of the ducking stool. A public televised humiliation in a county ducking stool ceremony for this hateful sad cow who wilfully and cynically violated her duties and responsibilities as a juror to weigh the evidence etc would be a fitting punishment, plus 364 days inside with NO time off for good behaviour. And a life long ban on pet owning too, given her despicable indifference to this puppy’s unbelievable suffering at the hands of these two sullen, unremorseful, retarded thuggish hippety hop types.

A law addressing the wider problems of such jury misbehaviour would be an excellent step to redressing the balance that is so heavily weighted towards the accused. Juries should ALWAYS be able to convict on majority verdicts of say 10 - 2 or 11 - 1, not just on unanimous verdicts. Not only would this save the tax payers massive exoense of retrials, but justice would be done and be seen to be done.

The obvious problem now becomes, what happens if another nutter (or even two or three nutters) lie their way onto the jury for the retrial? Given the enormous publicity this disgusting case has generated this could happen.

Typical of the leftist scum on here to have a cowardly pathetic sneer at Wolfowitz who is one of the finest, selfless, visionary public servants the USA had produced in the last 100 years.

Clearly the Bush admin should simply replicate the sick willie klinton playbook and arrange for IRS audits for anyone who publicly oppose them in such cowardly and sick ways. I recall sick willie whilst sexual harasser in chief arranged for an IRS audit of a very average woman in Chicago who unfortunately blundered into him as he was slithering out of his perjuring presidential limo one day in downtown Chicago, she simply exercised her democratic right to mildly protest his lies and dishonesty, and after the secret service freed her from several hours of imtimidatory custody (she made NO threat and was NO threat to sick willie at all) she was audited. After Bill O’Reilly began to focus publicly on the outrages of sick willie back in the 1990’s he was audited several times, just as harassment. Yet sick willie’s library slush fund has never been audited. Nor was his illegal fund raising ever properly investigated, nor his shameful presidential pardon slush fund etc.

By JoeD

December 19, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

Did Jim Wooten really write “The GA constitution and the US Constitution and the legal code are living documents to the extent that living people properly change them to address the evolution of the civic compact”? And again, “The living nature of government is its capacity , through elected officials, to react to changed cultures”? Wow, where did that enlightened thinking come from? I always thought Jim was a strict constructionist, where the Constitution meant what it said and it meant what it meant in 1789 and nothing more. I’m guessing Jim’s change of heart has more to do with the fact the change would be something he agrees with rather than a true change of heart on the living and breathing nature of the Constitution itself. Constitutitional expediency, huh, JW? Scalia, Alito and Thomas will have your conservative ID for this one.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

For narcissistic reasons, I simply refuse to blog about this.

By Brian Curtis

December 19, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

RW: Contempt of court is always a judgment call anyway.

And basing your vote on something other than conservative-approved facts is not “refusal to deliberate”… it’s simply basing your decision on your own sense of justice and understanding of the case.

Refusal to deliberate is categorically different from voting against the rest of the jury; that situation is already well known and perfectly workable. A “not guilty” vote is not the same as refusing to vote at all.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

Curious Observor,

I served as the jury foreman in a criminal case (drugs). One of the jurors (who had an extraordinarily bad attitude throughout) tried to introduce her own evidence into the case (a map of the area).

When she refused to put it away, I sent a note to the judge. We were all called in before the attorneys from both sides, the judge read the juror the riot act, and the problem was solved.

Was the judge in the insurance case you speak of alerted of the problem? Certainly judges should have the right to remove jurors who make up their own “facts” and disregard the evidence what was presented at trial.

By JoeD

December 19, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Did Jim Wooten really write “The GA constitution and the US Constitution and the legal code are living documents to the extent that living people properly change them to address the evolution of the civic compact”? And again, “The living nature of government is its capacity , through elected officials, to react to changed cultures”? Wow, where did that enlightened thinking come from? I always thought Jim was a strict constructionist, where the Constitution meant what it said and it meant what it meant in 1789 and nothing more. I’m guessing Jim’s change of heart has more to do with the fact the change would be something he agrees with rather than a true change of heart on the living and breathing nature of the Constitution itself. Constitutitional expediency, huh, JW? Scalia, Alito and Thomas will have your conservative ID for this one.

By Ralph

December 19, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Jim,

As a Democrat, I rarely agree with your comments and stand on things. But, you are right about this situation with the hold out jurors. Jurors must not be allowed to simply not participate or not deliberate. he jury system is a great institution of justice, and these holdouts are hurting our judicial process

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

S,

It’s not supposed to be your “opinion” - it’s supposed to be your deliberaton of the facts of the case as you weigh the evidence.

You should be able to have a persuasive argument to back up your reasoning, and you are obligated as a juror to share your reasoning with the other jurors.

That is not being “forced to deliberate”. It is the way the process works.

By rsm

December 19, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Refusal to deliberate should be contempt of court and jail time. ‘Nuff said. But according to the AJC, the woman who ultimately adopted the puppy “stand in” was not even aware the dog was in court. Might want to get your facts straight before you proclaim anything is “conclusively established,” don’t you think? Wishing you Happy Holidays, and oven time — oops, prison time — for those two thugs in 2007!

By Reece

December 19, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Allow me to clarify something for those that are positing that the jury hung due to one of the jurors being in disagreement with the rest.

This one juror simply refused to even deliberate, would not even discuss the matter at hand.

Jail him/her for contempt, leave’em locked in the Fulton County jail until the conclusion of the retrial. This newspaper could publicize THAT and there would be no need for ANY sort of legislation. People wouldn’t behave in that manner.

Nice Clinton Deflection® there TFTT

By Austin Rhodes

December 19, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

We have several talk show hosts here in Augusta that actively preach “jury nullification” as a great way to “send a message” to the police. Guilt or innocence be damned. We need a 10-2 rule…ask any honest atty or prosecutor.

By Redneck Convert

December 19, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

If them boys wasn’t guilty of anything, the cops wouldn’t have arrested them. We need to get rid of this jury stuff. If you are arrested, you need to go straight to prison. That’s the redneck way and the Christian way too.

Just look at all the money we waste on these trials. About 99% of the people brought to trial in GA are convicted. But we have to throw 100s of millions of dollars away on that 1% that is not guilty. It won’t hurt them none to spend a few years in the hoosegow. It might even make them better people and teach them to stay away from situations that involve calling the cops.

I watch the cop shows, and all the people they arrest is guilty in my book. Most of them are Those People anyway. The same is true here in GA. If the boys wasn’t guilty of anything, they wouldn’t have been arrested.

We got redneck justice here anyway. We just like to dress it up fancy and spend a lot of money doing it. Lock them up, throw away the key, and use the death penalty more. They can’t do crimes if they are dead. I’m sick of seeing people get off. It’s unChristian. TFTT and the other people here are missing the point. Bunch of libruls!

By Daryl

December 19, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

There’s a lot of d******* out there who shouldn’t be sitting on a jury. How much media attention, for doing nothing, is this dumbass planning on getting?

The liberals want to manage society’s future gene pool, let’s dump the ignorant from this country’s jury pool.

Professional and experienced jurors ONLY need apply.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Your statement that contempt of court is always subjective is ridiculous. The majority of contempt of court charges are for direct violations of court instruction and aren’t the least bit subjective. Is there any subject under the sun that you’re ever right about?

I’ll be gone for the day, but I’ll look forward to reading your answer.

By Brian Curtis

December 19, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Reece: Excellent point; apparently the clarification was needed.

Voting against the other jurors is not a problem; refusal to deliberate or vote at all, however, is.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Reece, you expect far to much of your fellow bloggers. Wooten explained the facts of the case in his article, inviting us all to blog relevance.

Instead, most glanced at the body of the composition, failing to absorb even a scintilla of salience, and went off in their own wild delerium trying to post the most words in a 6 hour stretch.

Welcome to unfettered pablum prosing, the legacy of early shock talk from the 80’s.

Notice how nearly every comment starts with the word, “duh”. Is that like a software glitch in my computer only, or is that really happening? What have you got over there on your end of sanity?

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Results of Iran’s election: the Persians are the cooler heads?

Now I’m afraid. That’s one of the seven seals nostradomus final prophesy things.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Austin Rhodes,

We don’t need a 10-2 rule. We need to vet jurors properly before they serve and if they lie during that process they should be prosecuted, or they should be considered to be in “contempt of court” if they refuse to follow the judges instructions and/or refuse to deliberate.

By ICEMAN

December 19, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

The Iceman has no interest in this matter.

By JoeD

December 19, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

As an honest attorney who does trial work and who has sat on three juries, I think you have to be careful about changing the law on unanimity. Our system is built on the concept of a fair trial for every defendant, even those we all know are guilty, and a judgment by a jury of peers that that person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To allow judges to dismiss the opinions of one or two jurors who disagree with the majority would open a can of worms. One or two out of twelve can hear the same facts and have a reasonable doubt. Unanimity is too important to toss away because a few jurors here and there don’t follow their oath. That said, I do think legitimate refusal to deliberate should be grounds for removal. The court should be notified and take whatever steps are appropriate to first get the juror to participate. If that is not successful, and the judge, after an in camera conference with the juror feels the juror is deliberately refusing to participate, a contempt citation and removal from the panel should be allowed. If there is an alternate, put them in and start deliberations again. If not, go with an 11 person jury but still require a unanimous verdict. In every civil trial I have participated in, the attorneys are asked ahead of time if they will agree to abide by the decision of a panel of less than 12 if a juror is taken ill or has an emergency. It is always accepted, as long as the verdict is unanimous.

By Brian Curtis

December 19, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

RW: You’re as clueless as ever; contempt of court is always up to the judge’s discretion (like issuing a ticket is for traffic cops). The judge can always decide to grant an extension, extend a second chance, etc.

Is there anything YOU’RE ever right on—besides being “right-wing” to the point of obliviousness, of course?

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 19, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Let’s face it - the problem with juries in Georgia will always be Georgians. The jury system is a beautiful thing, but throwing it before the swine of Georgia, who’d know?

Limit jury service to people who have an IQ over 100.

Myself and the eleven other people in the state that qualify could be permanent jurors.

By Hang 'em High

December 19, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Whatta ya need to discuss, anyhow. If the maggots weren’t guilty the cops wouldn’ta charged ‘em the first place. Hang ‘em all in the courthouse square as soon as the verdict is read n let God sort ‘em out.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 19, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

The best jury movie - Twelve Angry Men. I just remember that Lee J. Cobb really wanted to hang that damn Cynthia McKinney (or was he a Puerto Rican?), but then even he caved.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Whether a judge decides to enforce it or not, a direct violation of court instruction is contempt of court and not subjective. With the holdout juror it IS subjective in determining whether they violated their oath as a juror or not.

Try again Brian, although this time I really will be gone.

By Diogenes

December 19, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Your inclusion of the Wolfowitz incident is a mere distraction from the real issue. The two situations are antipodal. One is the failure to fulfill the role of a citizen in a democracy; the other is fulfilling the proper role of a citizen.

We can see the unwillingness to deliberate daily in this blog. Some of your blogsters seemingly have no desire to debate, using the tactics of the demagogue to suppress dissent. Some of the blogsters have no grasp of debate as a means to advance thought.

The line between suppressing legitimate dissent and a failure to deliberate is very narrow. Many questions arise. While I agree that a juror who will not participate in the process should be replaced, at what stage does a judge decide that a refusal to convict is a failure to deliberate? What constitutes lack of debate? What determines a personal political agenda from merely a refusal to convict on the grounds that the State has not made its case “beyond a shadow of a doubt”? Does the judge replace on the grounds that the juror lied during the selection process? Although I can see your and Mr. Howard’s frustration, I think we are still quite a ways from making it easy for the judge to determine when a “failure to deliberate” has occurred.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

JoeD, even though there’s only an 11% chance that you are actually an attourney, (and a .001% chance that you are honest), I’m going to reply to your well written blog.

In 12 angry men, Henry Fonda was the recalcitrant deliberator, who insisted on proper logical rumination of every point the prosecution made. That fact alone corroborates your comment.

BUT

In “Justice for all”, Al Pacino pointed at the judge and the prosecution and the jurors and yelled, “You’re out of order, you’re out of order, and YOU’RE OUT OF ORDER!”

I think that scene effectively debunks your summation, sir, and that’s why I strenuously object to your comment.

What we are dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law…..

By ICEMAN

December 19, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Sorry to break up this educated and intellectual free for all, but the guys who who killed that puppy should be castrated and made to watch their family die.

By Yikes

December 19, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

I sure hope my fate is never in the hands of a jury of my peers, especially in Georgia. What a scary thought…

By Free them all!

December 19, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Anyone who thinks that a juror doesn’t need to deliberate on a case probably would be better served under a government elsewhere – like Cuba. Many comments here have mentioned about one vote being right and eleven being wrong in a hypothetical case, and therefore that is the justification for setting someone free. While that may happen, it’s not the norm. Listening to all the bleeders here one would think that this nation has only put to death and incarcerated innocents.

A friend once served on a jury where a garbage man was accused of breaking into a home and all evidence pointed at him from fingerprints to stolen items. One of the jurors refused to vote for a conviction. There was going to be a retrial, but the DA dropped the case. It was discovered later that this woman used to own a home on the garbage man’s route and always gave him food. Later the garbage man was arrested for robbing a convenience store. How many of these types of cases have been out there? So here we had the 1 vote overriding the 11 votes. As a whole, I’d rather trust the judgment of eleven collectively than one individually. The odds of one person being right while the other eleven are wrong on a jury are extremely remote. But, that’s what the left loves – let the few override the many. Nobody has a problem with the Supreme Court passing laws with 5-4 margins.

What about that woman on the puppy case? Why did she refuse to deliberate? Was she biased in some way and didn’t want to put those kids away? For example, do all the criminal apologists believe that there are no biased jurors out there who would rather see a person walk free because of skin color than be tried by a jury pool of multiple races? What’s wrong with diversity in a jury? After all, everyone needs to be exposed to diversity. Or is that for everything but a jury? What’s going to happen to these kids down the road if they get off? They will have learned that our justice system is toothless because it’s better to let the guilty go free based on one voice than convict the innocent based on eleven voices.

By Deliberate Deliberations

December 19, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

I deliberated whether to deliberate this issue and deliberately decided that deliberation is deliberately not going to be deliberately deliberated when I deliberate this deliberately during my deliberations.

Nobody can say that I failed to deliberate.

By freedomadmin

December 19, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Hung juries just another symptom of failed policies in GW Bush’s America.

join me at the Freedom Forum to discuss:

http://www.forumcityusa.com//index.php?mforum=freedom

By getalife

December 19, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Jim whines:

“Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz came to Atlanta just over a week ago to speak in his capacity as president of the World Bank on America’s responsibility toward African poverty. His speech at the Ahavath Achim Synagogue on Peachtree Battle was interrupted three times by antiwar protesters who accused him of war crimes for his service to the Bush administration.”

Well, of course the neocons will be heckled for the rest of their miserable existance on this planet. They screwed up big time. He should not be President of anything, he should be locked up.

Get use to it, karma is coming.

By Diogenes

December 19, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

RW,

At 1:11 Monday, you made the comment, “How is education a liberal concept? You get loopier by the day. Your word twisting is also getting tiresome. I’m not for teaching fisting in school or telling our kids fairy tales about evolution and labeling it fact. Reading, writing, and math skills should certainly be taught. Civics and history should also be taught as well as basic economics. None of these things should be taught by the government.”

RW, are you really so ignorant that you don’t understand that education is a liberal concept? If you oppose that proposition, have at it, sport, show us how it is a conservative concept. What did they teach in that fantasyland school you went to? Just the basics of demagoguery?

That’s almost a coherent position statement you’ve stumbled into above. They certainly didn’t teach debate in that fantasyland school you attended either. You are constitutionally or intellectually incapable (I’m not sure which it is, maybe both) of making a clear proposition with supporting statements. You challenge people to debate, but you’re not capable of handling one. What you call “debate” is shouting your opponent down — demagoguery 101.

Tell us, RW, about this fantasyland school you propose. About all we know is that reading, writing, arithmetic, civics, and history should be taught, but not much else. Will the math be RW math or the same math the rest of the world learns? How about science? You’ll skip this one, I suppose. Will you personally write the history books, or will they be the same ones students everywhere read? How about economics? Tell us how that will be taught.

Tell us about RW civics. I’m really anxious to hear about this one. How will you teach “freedom of speech?“ or “freedom of the press?“ Come on, RW, you can do. Suck it up and give us a proposition with supporting statements, telling us about fantasyland school. Drop the role of demagogue long enough to hold civilized discourse. Or will this be like the eugenics debate in which you continually try to divert the issue? In that one, too, you ran away from making a proposition statement.

By SharonH

December 19, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

I cannot imagine why any American would seriously want to change the number needed to convict from unanimous. There have been enough false convictions in this country with a unanimous vote.

However, I agree with you for once that a juror who refuses to deliberate is shirking their duties and the law should allow them to be replaced. For once you were starting to make sense…….until you started on the Wolfowitz rant. What the ????????

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

We can see the unwillingness to deliberate daily in this blog. Some of your blogsters seemingly have no desire to debate blah blah blah…

Diogenes,

Is that^^First Person Diogenes talking about Third Person Diogenes who hides behind Jim Wooten?

What a ridiculous joke. No one is impeding your “right to dissent”. You have repeatedly been asked to defend your positions instead of just dropping Diogenes turds all over the blog and then running to new place to dump your BS.

By Georgia Justice for Wolfowitz

December 19, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

You know, where’s the spirit of Tom Watson when you need it?

Here’s a “man”, Wolfowitz, in league with the Devil, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Georgia young men and women.

They had a whole lot less on Leo Frank, and they hung him from a tree near the Big Chicken.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

dio.

Wooten’s Wolfawitz scenario in support worked well, while your own illustrative exceptions were woefully weak. Wooten: Seven…..Dio: ZIP!

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

The holdout woman juror was probably a cat person. That would explain everything.

That’s for sure, that’s for dang sure.

By getalife

December 19, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

“Which is to say that, globally, the United States is number one at demanding accountability and backing up that demand with imprisonment. But, when it comes to our president, vice president, secretary of state, former secretary of defense…this insistence on accountability vanishes. All of a sudden, what’s past is prologue. And we’re just “forward-looking.” But some people can’t just look forward. Men and women stationed in Iraq at this moment, under orders of a Commander-in-Chief so sufficiently practiced in the art of deception, that he got vast numbers of American journalists and the most esteemed media outlets of this country, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and PBS to eagerly serve his agenda-building for war. And the process also induced vast numbers of artists and performers (probably even some in this room tonight) to keep quiet and facilitate the push for an invasion in Iraq.”

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

GeorgiaJustice4Wolfawitz: Sir, are you saying that the holdout woman juror who refused to deliberate is an Acquittal Monkey?

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Ah yes. The obnoxious and cowardly Diogenes addresses RW directly (with a rambling and repetitive comment that will require great patience to wade through) knowing that RW has left and can’t respond.

By getalife

December 19, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Hell, most wingnuts refuse to deliberate on an uneeded war and refuse to hold those responsible accountable.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

The holdout juror is an Acquittal Monkey!

Perhaps bringing the live Puppy into the trial was what shocked the woman into not believing that anyone could do such a thing.

It was the prosecution what erred here. No demonstration is necessary when the words alone are horrible enough.

Acquittal Monkeys notwithstanding.

By Togg

December 19, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Consider this: Instead of a jury deliberating in a room together—where duress, coercion and subversion can easily impact decisions—they could deliberate from private cubicles via computer anonymously (think instant messenging). Information would still get exchanged, but without the same risk of manipulation or resistance.

By ICEMAN

December 19, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

getalife,

You need to get a life. Just because you have a personal vendetta with the President doesn’t mean you can just throw him in whenever you feel like it. In your doing so, you’ve just informed everyone on this blog that you are a brainless idiot who is in desperate need of attention.

By Curious Observer

December 19, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The facts of the case I referred to are as follows: A couple sued a mechanic for recovery of damages from an accident on a rain-slickened mountain road. Witnesses testified that they saw the motorcycle on which the couple rode traveling at a speed of at least 70 mph on a winding two-lane mountain highway. The mechanic was road-testing a pickup truck on which he had been working. Unfortunately for him, he had unknowingly allowed his drivers license to expire two days before. The couple sued on the basis that the mechanic was an unlicensed driver and thus improperly operating a vehicle. Although their motorcycle had swerved into his lane and struck the truck, they argued that he shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place.

Eleven of the jurors, after discussion, formed the opinion that the couple had been negligent in operating the motorcycle at such high rates of speed, given the road conditions, and they shouldn’t be entitled to any monetary award. The holdout, however, held firmly to the opinion that although the decision could go either way, he was not going to allow an insurance company to get by without paying anything.

How were the rest of us to judge that his vote was totally based on a refusal to deliberate? It is a very fine line. Reporting him to the judge on the basis that he disagreed with us was not an option. At the same time, he refused to be moved when we assured him that not wanting an insurance company to escape payment was not a sound reason for disagreement with us.

The case you cite—of a juror who created her own “evidence”—is clearly disqualifying. However, I imagine there are many other instances of hold-out jurors who walk a very thin line between a refusal to deliberate and an extremely biased opinion.

By getalife

December 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Iceman,

So what does that make you responding to an “brainless idiot who is in desperate need of attention.”

Get off the ice and get real.

Geez.

By Joe T

December 19, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

The frighting thing is allowing jorors to be se\lected from the registered voters list and having no qualifications whatsoever for a voter. What does Paul Howard and the liberal society expect? No surprise to anyone with values.

By time for the truth

December 19, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Slowly but surely England is becoming like Atlanta, Detroit, the southside of Chicago, Oakland, DC, East LA, Milwaukee etc.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?inarticleid=423627&inpageid=1770

this is a superb factual article worth reading although liberals should be deeply shamed by their general culpability for much of this!!

http://www.city-journal.org/html/143immigrant_gang.html

By getalife

December 19, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Crime is up, still not enforcing some laws, trashing the Constitution and freedoms, a needless war and Iceman thinks I have a personal vendetta against the worst President ever. I am in the majority of sane Americans.

Where does the buck stop again Icehead?

By Cletus Snow

December 19, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

If this juror refused to deliberate from the beginning stating guilty or not guilty up front, then they should contact the judge.If this juror after hearing the evidence had decided one way or the other, I see no reason to deliberate further

By getalife

December 19, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Iceman,

If I offended you or anyone else here, I’m sorry. OK. I’ll stick to the subject at hand from now on.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Curious, it’s doubtful shoplift canolis knows what a non sequitur is, so he’s unlikely to spot the legal flaw in your precedence.

Non-sequitur is a Paralegal term, but it has entered the lexiconic palette.

Why is everyone all of a sudden Perry Mason here? Like, your honor, I cite Brown vs the State of Moronia and I think I’ve proved that most commenters are blog-simple beyond a shadow of a groundhog and furthermore, your honor, where were you on the night of september the fifth?

By Joe T

December 19, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Many times I have refused to deliberate with my wife’s opinion or her evidence and after she got my attention \I realized how uninformed, ignorant, and misinformed I really was. Merry CHRISTMAS to all .

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Perhaps a jury of twelve angry puppies would have been more appropriate here.

By getalife

December 19, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

It is called a hung jury people. The DA is mad because he has to retry the case. Changing the law is a kneejerk reaction. He could ask better questions when choosing potential jurors. He failed not the system.

By LivingRight

December 19, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Your Foleyish affinity for RW is troubling.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

The holdout, however, held firmly to the opinion that although the decision could go either way, he was not going to allow an insurance company to get by without paying anything.

Curious Observor,

You’re right that the circumstances are very different, but a juror is required to hear the evidence. If the juror has decided that the insurance company has to pay no matter what the evidence, then the juror has prejudged the case.

Clearly they did a poor job of vetting this juror, but I also think it may have been possible to notify the judge that the juror had decided in advance to penalize the insurance company regardless of the facts and was thus effectively refusing to deliberate.

By Karrie

December 19, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

It seems to me that alot of you lost focus? which issue shall we pull apart first,the jurror who refuses to deliberate,or the kids that cooked the dog,heck, if it keeps up maybe wecan have marathon trials,sort of like default,prosecute the prosicuter,if that don’t work go after the judge? certainly it could be alot of fun, duh,duh,duh duh!!!

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Living Right,

How’s that moron? I am a she not a he.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Unless New York is different from Georgia, the lawyers not the judge ask the questions of prospective jurors.

As I recall the only time a judge is involved initially is if a juror wants to get out of jury duty and needs an excuse to be approved, or has a conflict of interest that needs to be reported privately.

Gotta run…later.

By Sick&Tired

December 19, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

How many of you have ever tried to get out of jury duty? It’s obvious the woman did not want to sit on the jury for this case and should have been allowed to just go home.

The law should not require someone to sit anywhere and participate in any case they have absolutely no intrest in or if someone does not share an understanding of civic duty.

The woman was within her RIGHT to not participate, it should have been obvious - she had no intrest in seeing just in this case and probably any other case. People should have the RIGHT to recuse themselves from cases, just because they simpley do not believe in the cause or want to participate.

Why force people to do something they SIMPLY do not want to do?

When you do, this is exactly the results you will acheive.

By InTownGal

December 19, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

key work here is refusal. Once on a jury it is your duty/job to deliberate! That’s what you do. If one refuses to do so, then you should be removed, b/c you are not chosen to do otherwise. There should be a way to remove and push ahead with 11 as JoeD stated in a previous post. This is the same as showing up to your job but refusing to do the work. You would be fired eventually for that too!

By MELO

December 19, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

For a change today, the refusal by that juror to deliberate is not being blamed on “leftist liberal” thinking! Jesus is in you today Jim. Merry Xmas.

By JK

December 19, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

MELO, it didn’t take long actually. RW did at 8:38 this morning. Yawwwwn! Too predictable.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

No need to worry folks. Those two “boys” will be appearing before many juries in thier lifetimes.

That woman may have saved her soul brothers this time, but there will be a next and a next and a next. Just pray its not your family or loved one they hurt during thier next crime spree.

Frankly I like DeKalbs method of dealing with troubled “boys” like these. Dont even let it get to the jury, take them straight to the coroners autopsy table.

By DebbieDoRight

December 19, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

I think that this juror should be exposed for the dastardly person that they are. The judge should have jailed this person for contempt and left them jailed until the verdict is read in the retrial of these two hooligans

i guess that would make everyone rush to be a juror in the future!! u already have to leave your job for days/weeks at time, (unpaid — unless you count the $2.00/day surcharge you get while serving), then you have the opportunity of being “jailed” if someone thinks you’re deliberately holding up the jury. oh yeah, i’d RACe to be in the next jury pool…..

By realitybites

December 19, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

The reality is that only people too stupid to get out of jury duty server on juries and lawyers love stupid people on juries. The truth is you can vote anyway you want for any reason you want. Defendant has nice shoes not guilty, don’t like his lawyers tie guilty. Once upon a time I had a horrible Union job so I served on a DUI trial. Cop pulled a drunk over for running a stop sign that didn’t exist. I didn’t refuse to deliberate, in fact we deliberated for hours and hours. They never showed me the invisible stop sign and I never showed them a guilt vote. Cops and Preachers are the best liars because they practice so much. Our government is out of control. Send them a message by getting on the jury and vote not guilty.

By Kelly

December 19, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Realist (1223) “That woman may have saved her soul brothers this time…Dont even let it get to the jury, take them straight to the coroners”

Hey Racist,

The Grand Wizard thanks you for keeping the flame burning. As for me, I’m white, and you’re an embarrassment!

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

A Jury of Twelve Angry Puppies is bound to have one dawg who refuses to do his constitutional duties.

It’s a dog eat dog world. That’s for sure, that’s for dang-diggity-dog sure.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Every dog is entitled to trial by jury of his pee-ers.

By JoeD

December 19, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Realitybites, You are not keeping up with the times. It is much harder to get out of jury duty these days. You must have a legitimate legal reason. And lawyers don’t want stupid people on juries. We look for people who don’t know much about the subject matter, so we can convince them our side should win without having to overcome pre-existing prejudices. Jurors can vote any way they want, but most will not be stupid enough to sit through a case just to torpedo the proceedings. My experience has been that no one wants to serve on a jury, but those chosen in 99% of the cases take their responsibilities seriously and try to do the right thing. That is all you can ask.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Perhaps an ambulance-chasing legist would have done better with this canine case that unleashed so many blogs today.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish is a woman, and in this case, a real legal Beagle.

By DebbieDoRight

December 19, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

What’s going to happen to these kids down the road if they get off? They will have learned that our justice system is toothless because it’s better to let the guilty go free based on one voice than convict the innocent based on eleven voices

According to John Dougls, (Ex-FBI profiler), animal abuse is sometimes a precursor to later psychopathic anti-social tendencies.

By getalife

December 19, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

BD,

Just tell them everyone is not guilty until there is accountability for w’s disaster.

There is your out for jury duty.

By TS

December 19, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

I am scared to death of anyone wanting to make changes to the state or federal constitution after one case. Knee-jerk reactions will lead to the faliure of our great 200+ year political experiment. Knee-jerk reactions are why we are now making criminals of teenagers who engage in sexual activity under the age of 18 (most of us did it when we were that age). People we are way to quick to make new legislation without weighing all of the pros and cons. I would rather set 4 criminals free than convict one innocent man. Too many innocent people have been set free after 11-1 verdicts. I know there is a cost for this in which I am more than willing to pay. That is the beauty of our system. While I am saddened that that one juror was unwilling to deliberate…the alternative is unacceptable. Just wait until Wooten is on the other side of the coin and see how he feels then.

By getalife

December 19, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Hey, Realpos is back.

You have some nerve coming back here after the crap you spew.

How do you live with yourself?

Oh, thats right you are from Alabama.

Roll turd.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

The one thing Getalife will never be on is a hung jury.

that’s for sure, that’s for dang sure.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

I can see that this puppy case is gnawing on your collective consciences, people, and my heart(worm) goes out to you all.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

You gotta admire the way Wooten fetched this story!

By Victor J. Williams

December 19, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Hey Time for the Truth,

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

You have to admire the holdout juror for being so stubborn even though the other 11 jurors were pushing her nose in the evidence.

By Brenda

December 19, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

I for one am proud that the juror held her ground. That is the problem with society. We are afraid to stand along on issues, afraid others will speak negative about us as an individual. Remember the saying “If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything”. That is why there are so many innocent people incarcerated in our prisons. Because that one juror who had doubt was afraid to stand along. I say stand along and be heard.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

What Im saying Vic is plainly this. Those two little ba*stards deserved to be put in prison for what they did, but because they were black and faced a mostly black jury, they were acquited. Now they are free to offend again, this time possibly against someones child or other loved one. Hopefully they will get “smoked” by one of thier own before they inflict pain on any innocents. We can only hope.

We live in a world where two black boys murder a young white woman in Savannah, and scream racism when they get a life sentence, seemingly implying thier young lives are just as valueable as the life of the lilly white debutante they killed. (obviously forgetting the fact that they comitted MURDER which isnt a racial issue to begin with).

Vic old boy, I think yours and others time would be better spent in your own communities trying to reach out to these youths who are killing themselves, others, puppies, etc rather than trying to lay the blame at the white mans doorstep. You wont change me and you wont change the mindset of the nation when the evening news is running stories every night about murders occuring because somebody got “dissed”. Now that the cops are shooting back and proetecting themselves, you have the nerve to lay the blame with the police, not with the community that produces these hoods. Typical.

Frankly, I think those in the black community who blame others first are the most dishonest, parasitic, disgusting individuals of them all.

Is that clear enough for you Vic?

By Victor J. Williams

December 19, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Realist

Wrong stupid “boy”. They were acquitted because of one juror. By the way, learn it’s ‘acquitted’ not ‘acquited’. Learn how to spell.

I would never try to change a dumba$$. You’re just too dumb

The majority of the U.S. population don’t have the intelligence to comprehend sound logic.

WTF are you talking about?!?!? Where and when did I even mention the police. I was talking about you, Time for the Truth and David Duke. Pay attention!

Yes, you have successfully convinced me that you are guilty of being dumber than a box of rocks.

In the words of the competition judge in “Billy Madison”: “Mr. Realist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

By time for the truth

December 19, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Vic baby … long time no sneer at your ultra dumbarse - hope all is well is your McKinney free little world!!

hippety hop types rather amusingly evokes the supremely witty euphemism that the large black (traditional warrior) lady in the p!ss poor American remake of the Ealing comedy classic The LadyKillers used to describe the thuggish/racist/sexist/gangsta bollocks-shiite perpetrated on society that goes by the rather misleading trendy designation of rap music.

Clearly these two black thuggish puppy killers have thus far avoided justice becasue a mainly black jury values the freedom of two utterly UNREPENTANT scumbag POS over the life of a terrified puppy murdered in the most horrific way.

Hopefully allaaaaargh will suitably punish these vermin if a second (mostly) black jury doesn’t.

SAVE YOUR phoney OUTRAGE DICKWEED for the bestial torture of an innocent puppy, and not for those who are willing to bluntly call a spade a spade … as we proudly sententious English have said (notably) in Yorkshire for centuries.

By regulator

December 19, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Having been on a jury that endured a four week trial and had this happen, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, I agree with Jim.

By Victor J. Williams

December 19, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Realist

Wrong stupid “boy”. They were acquitted because of one juror. By the way, learn it’s ‘acquitted’ not ‘acquited’. Learn how to spell.

I would never try to change a dumba$$. You’re just too dumb

The majority of the U.S. population don’t have the intelligence to comprehend sound logic.

WTF are you talking about?!?!? Where and when did I even mention the police. I was talking about you, Time for the Truth and David Duke. Pay attention!

Yes, you have successfully convinced me that you are guilty of being dumber than a box of rocks.

In the words of the competition judge in “Billy Madison”: “Mr. Realist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

By TS

December 19, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Whoa “Realist”…you might want to put the crack pipe down long enough to consider another theory on what happened. The reason the two young men were not convicted may have not been the fact that they were black and the jury was mostly black. I know that it is easy for a crackhead like yourself to immedately jump to that conclusion…because after all…all black folks act alike. Join the 21st century and realize that the black community is much more complex and complicated than that. Now I agree with you that the men in Savannah using the “whitey is out to get me” defense is sad. But I believe that it is the people like you who continue to give that type of defense weight. Whether you want to believe it or not…your attitudes

“Frankly I like DeKalbs method of dealing with troubled “boys” like these. Dont even let it get to the jury, take them straight to the coroners autopsy table.”

have helped produce these “hoods” and those in the black community that scream racism at the drop of a hat.

By Jim Wooten

December 19, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

While over at the Capitol today, I ran into State Rep. Barry Fleming (R-Harlem), who says he plans to introduce a bill in January that will allow for less than unanimous decisions in the penalty phase of capital punishment trials. As he explains it, he’d still require a unanimous verdict to convict in capital cases, but would allow the death penalty with either a majority or some larger number larger than 7; he’s not yet decided. As to the proposal put forth by DA Paul Howard, he’s inclined to be supportive, but cautions: “You don’t want a judge bent on an outcome to have unfettered choice in this.” Fleming is the majority whip in the House. Really smart guy.

By Sick&Tired

December 19, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Those two young men - looked very INTERRACIAL to me. So there must be a Thuggist white man/woman in the picture somewhere, who helped to bring them into this world.

So I wouldn’t make this a black/white thing if I were you.

Speaking to both “Time for the Truth and Realist”.

I’m wondering why no one is seeking mental help for both boys. I think, rehabilitation is possible and they should not have to do JAIL time.

The whole idea of sending two teenagers to prison for killing a puppy is outrageous.

I don’t condone killing anything or anybody, but some people get lighter sentences for killing humans - depending upon circumstances.

I can almost guarantee you that if this had happened in Johns Creek, it would be probation and mental help.

I think this is truly a case of two teenagers doing something stupid and with high mental issues. They should be forced to work in an Animal Shelter for a few years, for free. Probation for at least 5 years and a few years under the care of a phychologist.

By Kelly

December 19, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Realist (219) “Those two little bastards deserved to be put in prison for what they did, but because they were black and faced a mostly black jury, they were acquited.”

Racist,

Despite your sad attempt to explain yourself, you’re still an embarrassment to white people everywhere and to Georgians in particular.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

“The majority of the U.S. population don’t have the intelligence to comprehend sound logic.”

Vic, This is the only thing I noted from your sermon. The contraction you were looking for is doesn’t, not don’t. A good trick to know which to use is to say it out loud to yoself and see do it sound right. For instance, “The majority of the US Population DO NOT have the intelligence…”. OR is it “The majority of the US Population DOES NOT have the intelligence…”

See what I mean? There is nothing worse than trying to be all uppity and point out someones typo or error in grammar, and in doing so showing how truly ignorant you are yourself. I got a good laugh from it though, thank you. Now can you shuck and jive for me and sing me a tune?

By the way, I do agree with you on your thought regarding the US Population and thier ignorance. It has never been more evident than in the most recent elections. It just dont, er I mean doenst, make any sense. :)

By Sick&Tired

December 19, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

The only thing that new bill would do is to force people to convict, just for the sake of having a verdict.

I think that if a jury trial is selected, the final decision should come from a jury.

It’s like saying what - just because the other jurors disagree - the jurors with the Guilty verdict are correct.

What happens 25 years down the road, if a case comes back into play where we find out by DNA or some other evidence that the verdict was incorrect and the Judge overstepped the split jury and found the defendent Guilty? Oh, well the Jury couldn’t make a unanimous decision, so the Judge made it for them.

But, I’m sure you don’t care about Small cases such as this one. You are the type to believe that anyone outside of your “Small” entourage is guilty by birth and/or association. And that if they aren’t financially secure and can afford the best counsel, they should be found guilty.

Every day, I become more and more Sick & Tired.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

To Sick and Tired,

There was also the little matter or breaking and entering, vandalism, criminal mischief and a list of other charges. People like you are what is worng with this country. When your daughter or wife gets raped or carjacked then come and talk to me about “rehabilitation”.

To Kelly, Who are you and why are you addressing me? I dont know you are care to discuss these issues with you. If I were a racist I suppose Id call you a white N or N loving white trash and be done with it huh. Well so be it and so you are. Happy? Now go away fly, shoo!

By Victor J. Williams

December 19, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

“The contraction you were looking for is doesn’t, not don’t.”

um….I rest my case.

Time for the Truth I think he needs your help.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Sick&Tired,

Uh, there are 2 bills that Wooten is talking about:

I don’t see how anything you said at 3:43 is relevant to either proposed Bill.

By TS

December 19, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Realist,

Is the Klan rally at your house tonight?

By Kelly

December 19, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Realist (337) “If I were a racist I suppose Id call you a white N or N loving white trash and be done with it…so you are.”

Racist,

Thanks for the confirmation, but we didn’t need it. Since you’re not making friends here, I thought I might offer you a resource:

http://www.kkk.bz

They seem like a nice bunch of white Christian Americans. You should fit in nicely.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Lighten up Vic. We are all impressed with your command of the white mans language and your mastery of bullet points. Well done.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

No, no rally tonight. But I hear there is a late night primer lesson at Vics house.

By Sick&Tired

December 19, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Realist - all of those charges would be mute, because they were not repeat offenders. The circumstances still fall under “Rehabilitation”. You do sould like a racist and when you open your “keyboard” - you reflect in your writings a very hateful racist.

People like myself, would like to put people like yourself - in prison for spewing such hateful stereotypes. You do just as much damage to society, as you say the people you stereotype cause, on this blog daily.

In response to the example of my daughter being raped or carjacked. My father was shot inside a dry cleaners, when I was 3 and my sister was 2 years old. The same thing happened to Two of my first cousins. My aunt was murdered by her husband, in front of their four small children in 1990.

I have experienced first hand, violent crimes and the effects on family. There isn’t anything you can say to me about rehabilitation. I am a believer and I know that it has happened and can continue to happen.

I also know about forgiveness. Nothing will bring back your friend or relative, but if you can do something possitive with all that energy - you might just learn something.

Realist - until you have walked in my shoes, don’t comment about People like me. People like myself have experienced hurt, loss and violent crimes.

I’ll state it again - I’m Sick & Tired.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

The Military Commissions Act in it’s first day: already we’re considering compromises in a solid jury system that’s worked for 200 years.

What, we gotta lose Habeus Corpus AND we change the jury system too?

By hellinahandbasket

December 19, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

I agree. I recently sat in as a juror on a case where a woman was injured in car accident, she sprained her ankle. The person responsible had agreed to pay all medical bills and some compensation but the lawyers and this woman say $$$ signs and were hoping for millions. The doctors said she was healed and she even moved, had a baby, went on a vacation and changed jobs during this time when she was so crippled she supposedly couldn’t walk. The real travesty was we had one juror who acted very indifferent during the whole trial and all the other jurors were convinced she was lying about her injuries and that her sprained ankle was not worth millions. When it came to deliberations the other jurors felt yes her medical bills, loss of wages and travel expenses should have been paid…she even tried to pass off her mother babysitting for her kids as an expense…her mother offered up 2 years of receipts that suspiciously looked like they had been written with the same pen on the same day. But this one juror ‘came alive’ during deliberations and began to whine he wanted to vote and that we were keeping him from it and various other requests to put pressure on the rest of us and the judge. He held firm saying she should get at least 2 million…for a sprained ankle…we pointed out the evidence and tried to reason with him but he would not be swayed….and add to that pressure an elderly lady with medical problems needed to go home. This was a simple case two days of evidence and we were now on two days of deliberations with this one juror holding the rest of us hostage…we finally agreed, although it still pricks my concious to this day…to give her close to 200,000.00 her medical costs, loss of wages etc. with the reality that they were closer to 60,000.00. And what really angered all the jurors was the comments made by this one who held out for more for this woman…he had been in the Navy and somehow injured, subsequently he was given a medical discharge and he boasted that he took them and she deserved to get the insurance companies too…so then his true agenda was revealed and we could do nothing. I have no doubt this was a friend of his or aquaintence as this is a rural county (Jackson, north of Atlanta) and lots of people know each other. And I have no doubt he got some of the settlement for his helping her win this case…can I prove it…no but the comments he made after the case confirmed to all what we already knew…he had an agenda and he wanted her to win and she did. Of course the rest of us were trying to do what was right, we wanted to make sure the defendant and plaintiff both were treated fairly and in the end justice was not done. Was this woman the same? did she know the defendants family? did she have an agenda? probably…but can it be proved…I doubt it and the really sad thing is these boys will get the psychological help they need, they are very sick boys and will only see this as ‘permission’ to do what ever they want…next time though it maybe another child duct taped and cooked in that oven…I wonder if that ‘hold out’ juror can live with that?

By Niki77

December 19, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

I fail to understand how even a case about two young men maliciously cooking a pup becomes a racial tirade for you dixie-typical hicks on here. ??? You guys really need to get over, get past, get BEYOND your bigotry. How are you going to live with any peace of mind in 10-15 years when Latinos and minorities are truly the majority and represented as such in positions of power/authority? Just go ahead and take yourselves out now and get the pain over with.
As for the REAL issue at hand here—the psychopaths on pups—it is repugnant, amoral, disgusting, and something that must be addressed with therapy before it eventually escalates into serial killing or some other form of sick aggression. I pray that there will be some type of common sense intercession here to help these misguided young men before it gets to that point.

By Realist

December 19, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Sick and Tired, Its amazing that you have forgiveness in your heart after having suffered so much violent crime personally. I cant imagine that many shootings in a hundred families, much less one.

As for me, I have revenge and reckoning in my heart if someone hurts my family. I will leave forgiveness to Jesus.

By Sick&Tired

December 19, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish - I’m not suprise you don’t see a connection.

If you had read my earlier post you would know that anyone who does not want to be on a jury should not have to serve.

But, I do not believe that a Judge should step in when a decision can not be found unanimously by a jury.

If you are refusing to deliberate, then you do not believe in the case that is being prosecuted; meaning that person believes that the defendents are NOT Guilty.

I don’t think we would be discussing the TOPIC today, if the person who had REFUSED to DELIBERATE had believe the boys were GUILTY.

If someone gets on a JURY to deliberately HANG the decision, it is because they do not believe that the case should be prosecuted and they do not believe the defendents are GUILTY. How many times have we seen in the REAL world or ON TV - someone trying to create a HUNG Jury, where they want the defendents to GO TO JAIL?

It is up to the courts when picking the Jury to remove people who are not beneficial to the process. Once the Jury has been picked……… OH well…

I guess you should have picked more jurors who are sympathetic to your cause. That’s what all of this boils down to today…………

This jury process has been working for hundreds of years, but we are NOW trying to make it so that it benefits “what we want the decision” to be.

By Political Foreskin

December 19, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Anyone else notice how Realisp’s comments are taken word for word from the original Billy Jack movie?

By Realist

December 19, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Like i said earlier, those two boys will end up dead in a hold up or in prison either way you look at it so why stress about it now. Just pray they dont take anybody with them when they go, like a decent police officer trying to feed his wife and kids on $30k a year.

To the person spewing the population numbers about mexicans and immigrants, I think you will see a big exodus back to Mexico once the us govt figures out a way to track and tax them and make them contribute like the rest of us have to. Mexico will suddenly look more attractive again….

By JK

December 19, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Niki77, nicely put at 4:13!

By Kelly

December 19, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Realist (430) “*I think you will see a big exodus back to Mexico once the us govt figures out a way to track and tax them and make them contribute like the rest of us…)

Racist,

You just can’t help yourself, can you? You’ve earned yourself a permanent spot in “time for the truth’s” category — unread clutter.

Congratulations and good luck.

By jbmlaw

December 19, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon all, fitting that I have one of my increasingly rare court days while you all debate today’s topic. I’ll read everyone’s comments tonight. I have previously argued in this space for abolition of the jury; I cannot conceive any reason to change my mind. Leave it to the judges, make them earn their money! Most of the time the judges are pretty good, strike a good balance. I never ask for a jury, too many strange things happen with juries.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

JK,

Would you please explain how my 8:38 blames the holdout juror on liberal thinking? I’ll save you the time, it doesn’t. Try actually reading instead of looking for code words and filling in your own biases.

Dio,

Do you feel better after that rambling incoherent spam job this morning? If you want to begin by taking the conversation back to eugenics, I gave you the definition and multiple examples that clearly showed you had no idea what you were accusing Jim of. It’s really not my problem that you failed to comprehend that.

By Buy Danish

December 19, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Sick&Tired,

Hundreds of years ago we didn’t have a bunch of anarchists with never-ending greivances demanding “jury nullification”. We also didn’t have a bunch of indoctrinated people who think that ripping of insurance companies or Big Corporations is a constitutional right.

If a juror doesn’t believe the defendant is guilty than they should be able to substantiate their reasoning based on the evidence, not just remain silent because they have a lousy attitude and want to screw the system.

What this juror did is obstruct justice and the judge should be able to remove the juror.

By David

December 19, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this

I have been reading all the blogs and I know I’m stupid but I just dont’ understand what the fuss is about. If the juror said she was not going to convict, what is there to “deliberate” about? It seems to me that the rest of the panel just wanted to “convince” her that she was wrong! I think the system worked fine and if Fulton County wants to waste hundreds of thousands more of OUR tax dollars on a dog, well I guess that that would be a good thing huh? Those two boys need help. Maybe we could spend a few thousand on that.

By Markus

December 19, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Forget about limpwristed jurors who don’t want to deliberate on a conviction. This is what I like seeing: a father in court reacting to a 9/11 call by his daughter during a home invasion.

Go to cnn and check out the courtroom brawl video. I’ll bet this father wished he had shot the SOB right between the eyes had he been home.

But, that’s the good news around this nation. We can blow the heads off intruders who break into our homes and bypass the court systems and bedwetting liberal criminal appeasers altogether.

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/873285.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/17/BAGF1N1D7R10.DTL

http://www.nbc6.net/news/4716904/detail.html

http://wcco.com/topstories/localstory332070033.html

Oh HELL yeah that’s good stuff.

By Ken

December 19, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

If the juror was in the courtroom and in the deliberation room, then unless the juror’s deaf he/she heard the arguments. Nobody’s bound to speak in the jury room beyond expressing their judgment. If you heard the case and heard opinions expressed by fellow jurors who chose to express their views, and expressed your own judgment, you’ve met all of the requirements of deliberation. Anyone who implies differently simply wants to stack the jury one way or the other. The notion of disqualification or contempt for not folding to the majority is ludicrous.

By RW-(the original)

December 19, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

David,

Why do you want to spend thousands getting these boys help if they did nothing wrong? Wouldn’t that likely mean they don’t need help and you’ve just decided to sentence them to whatever help you think they need without any justification for doing that?

By RagingMad

December 19, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

It is criminal what this juror has done. “The system failed me” as a juror - she said. This woman will (and should) be held up to public ridicule for the rest of her life. These two boys were arrested, charged, and put on trial for one reason - BECAUSE THEY WERE GUILTY OF THE CRIME. In very, very few cases are the accused actually innocent of the crimes that they are charged. Does the general public not get this? Logic is a pastime … how sad!

By RagingMad

December 19, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

David - I guess you are part of the “general public” that I was refering to. “Help” for these boys? They are beyond help. As children they are killing animals … and I don’t want to even think about what they will be capable of as adults.

By Markus

December 19, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Hmmm. A New Yawk state senator is on the chain for finger discounting out of a charity fund to the tune of over $400k.

http://www.nysun.com/article/45131/

Former state Senator John Ford (related to the other Ford from TN) is on the chain for lifting over $800k via contractors via increasing state medicare funds.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5828872&nav=menu59_2

Now what’s wrong with this picture? No mainstream media exposure from the likes of the New York Slimes or people like Chris “softballs” Matthews. Nah, no media bias whatsoever.

By Kelly

December 19, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

RagingMad (534) “In very, very few cases are the accused actually innocent of the crimes that they are charged. Does the general public not get this?”

December 19, 2006 — 188 Exonerated!!!

http://www.innocenceproject.org

By Ken

December 19, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

Sorry, but there are good and valid reason why one juror can derail a conviction, and they’re more important today than ever. Especially true in this day and age where attorneys have stacked the statehouses to such a highly disproportionate degree- no surprise that the definition of what constitutes criminal behavior keeps endlessly expanding. We’re incarcerating people who have never raised a hand in violence or thievery at an unheard of level today. Any jury that doesn’t ask itself whether a case merits conviction not just upon the facts and the law but also upon the consequences to a society already putting people away in record numbers, is irresponsible- considering our overbloated justice system. There’s a reason juries choose not to convict unanimously despite the evidence and the law, and especially in more petty matters that’s really the last defense people have against a legal system run amock. Anyone who wants to scrap our jury system because sometimes it releases people despite what a bunch of clowns in various statehouses have enacted and despite what the bar association is instructing them to consider and not consider from the bench is frankly a whole lot more dangerous to society than some kids who killed a dog. That’s the pure and simple bottom line here.

By Well good

December 20, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Looks like Sonny did … get his hand caught in the cookie jar. Can’t wait ‘til the IRS gets onto his fat rear. “Well, you get elected governor, Brian …”

By Political Foreskin

December 20, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

If the leash dont fit, you must acquit!

By Sonny was a Democrat before he went astray

December 20, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

I am not afraid of hold out jurors, or anything like that. I am very afraid of the Republican Party in Georgia and right wing politicians like Speaker Richardson, Lt Gov elect Cagle, and the king of folly, Sonny “tax break” perdue. Also how can we forget the real nuts in the Christian Coalition and Sadie Fields and her friends. Now that Sonny is back for 4 more, and the GOP in control of the state legislature, only one thing is for certain, Georgia will be moving backwards 1000 years. Thank goodness the US House and Senate are Democrat controlled. Then they can keep the fruit cake Georgia GOP in check somewhat. I am almost ashamed to be a native of this backwards thinking state.
History will remember Perdue as Sonny “I did nothing worthwhile as governor” Perdue.

By Well good

December 20, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Don’t despair, Sonny may be going to jail. Keep digging AJC. This thing smells too much like doo to be anything good. You haven’t reached the nugget yet, but I believe it’s there.

By Cooke

December 20, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

The juror in the puppy trial has allowed two future murderers to go free. If these brothers would do that to an innocent puppy what do you think they will do to a human being when they get older. One way to solve this situation is to let me be alone for 10 min. in a locked room with these two brothers. I will give them something their parents obviously never did.

By Bill

December 20, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Freedom and Democracy are always messy. The fact that we are a free people will from time to time cause us to disagree. As a free people we allow the government to take that freedom away if it can prove to twelve people that they did in fact commit a crime. Now Mr. Wooten doesn’t like the fact that people don’t like the policies or don’t believe that the charges true. He wants an easier way to take freedom away. He seeks more power for the state and less of a chance for men of conscience to raise their voice. He is a coward and his own words show him as such. I don’t seek to silence Mr. Wooten or remove his voice from the public discussion. I indeed want him to shout his message louder. Because his is a voice to a small minority of people who seek to dismantle the very fabric that ties this nation together. We should listen to all the John Wooten’s of this state. Then do the very opposite of what they proclaim.

By jg

December 20, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

As it turns out from today’s news, the hold-out juror said she didn’t refuse to deliberate, she just refused to convict. The quote from the jury foreman shows that he misunderstood the law. It’s not a huge jump to assume, as foreman, he led 10 others to misundertand the law as well. His quote:”Our charge was to look at the evidence, not the lack of it.” The jurors job is to decide if the state proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors are charged in every criminal case that a reasonable doubt may arise “from a consideration of the evidence, a LACK of evidence, or a conflict in the evidence.” The foreman’s statement that they were not charged with looking at the lack of evidence shows he misundertood the law. Any juror who refuses to consider the LACK of evidence is, perhaps unintentionally, failing to do their duty as a juror. The foreman and others thought it plausible that the children’s stories were inconsistent b/c they were children and saw things from different perspectives. The holdout seem to believe it at least equally plausible that their stories were inconsistent b/c they were lying. (Remember, neither defendant argued the crime didn’t happen, but that they weren’t the perps.) If you have 2 different theories,(one of which holds that the defendant is innocent) & both are plausible, that’s reasonable doubt under the law and a juror is obligated to render a verdict of “not guilty”. As to REALIST and others, the boys were NOT acquitted. Criminal verdicts (there are only 2 possible: “guilty” and “not guilty” ) have to be unanimous. If a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict (either guilty or not guilty) a mistrial is declared, and then the case can be retried. Even if 11 voted not guilty and 1 voted guilty. (It happens). In fact, there have been cases where a person was put on trial 4 times where each time, there was only 1 or 2 jurors who wanted to convict. All lawyers lose cases. But Mr. Howard always wants to change the rules anytime he looses a high profile one (and in this one, he has courted the media attention).