new trend? judge's removing jurers to end deadlocks?

[waggy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law...fs.deadlock/index.html

. GEORGE, Utah (CNN) -- After just a day of deliberations, jurors in the trial of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs told the judge that they were deadlocked on one of the two counts but now may be close to a verdict.

But the status of the jury's progress grew murky Tuesday morning as a juror was removed and replaced with an alternate.

Jurors were instructed to start over with their deliberations after a female alternate replaced the woman juror, a court officials said. The jurors were told to disregard any comments the removed juror had made during earlier deliberations.

Jeffs, 51, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is accused of being an accomplice to rape for allegedly using his religious authority to push a 14-year-old girl into a marriage she didn't want.

District Judge James Shumate sent the jurors back to continue deliberations, without revealing whether they had reached a verdict on the other count.

The judge said later Monday that jurors had told him they were nearing a verdict.

"They believe they are close to a verdict on both counts, but they want to sleep on it for the night," Shumate said, according to The Associated Press.

Jeffs faces a possible life sentence if convicted.

The two counts against Jeffs involve the same couple but different time frames. The first count covers the period immediately after the marriage, while the second count, on which jurors said they were deadlocked, covers the remaining two years of the marriage.

Members of the FLDS, based in the twin border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, openly practice polygamy. Jeffs, who is considered a prophet by his followers, has led the 10,000-member sect since his father's death in 2002.

He has drawn critical attention to the group by allegedly arranging marriages to girls as young as 13, exiling male teens and young men to reduce competition for brides, and reassigning the wives and children of excommunicated male followers.

Jeffs, who was once on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, was captured in Nevada in August 2006 after two years on the run. In addition to the Utah charges, he also faces multiple counts in Arizona of being an accomplice to incest and sex with minors. E-mail to a friend




seems a new trend. it happened in the Petterson case and now here? Also in the spector trail the judge changed the rules when they had a deadlock.

while i think they are guilty i don't like the judges changing the rules to get a conviction.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Or could it have been that there was a juror that had to be excused because of some reason.

Are you jumping to a conclusion that the juror was preventing a verdict or do you have additional insight?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Or could it have been that there was a juror that had to be excused because of some reason.

Are you jumping to a conclusion that the juror was preventing a verdict or do you have additional insight?

well considering it has happened (the scot petteson trail) and once they remove this jurer they say they are close to a verdict hmm.

Also look at the specter trail. the jury was deadlocked. the judge told them to consider other alternitives that the DA did not give or the Defense is not able to defend.


Also none of the articles (this is not the only one i read on the jeff case) mention WHY the jurer was dismissed. just they were dismissed and nwo they are close to a decision.

if there is a article why they were dismissed please post it. i have looked and can't find it.

 

[waggy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law...amist.trial/index.html

ST. GEORGE, Utah (CNN) -- A jury has reached a verdict in the rape-accomplice trial of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs.

The five women and three men will return the verdict at 4:15 p.m. ET after two tumultuous days of deliberations.

The jury had declared itself deadlocked, then said it was close to a verdict Monday night but wanted to sleep on it. Tuesday morning, a juror was replaced with an alternate without explanation.

Jeffs is president and "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The sect, based in the twin border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, claims some 10,000 members.

Prosecutors charged that Jeffs was an accomplice to rape, allegedly using his religious authority to coerce a 14-year-old girl to marry her cousin despite her objections. He had been a school headmaster and was the son of the sect's previous prophet, Rulon Jeffs, who died in 2002.

The defense said authorities were persecuting Jeffs because of his religious beliefs, which include practicing plural marriage as the way to heaven. "His church, his religious beliefs is what's on trial here, and it's being dressed up as a rape," attorney Walter Bugden argued.

The case went to the jury Friday, following five days of testimony. The key witnesses were the reluctant child bride, Elissa Wall, and her husband in the arranged "spiritual" marriage, Allen Steed.

The two witnesses -- she testifying for the prosecution, he for the defense -- gave conflicting accounts of Jeffs' influence over them and their 2001 marriage. Jeffs performed the wedding ceremony in a Caliente, Nevada, motel room.

Warren Jeffs told them to go forward and multiply and replenish the Earth, and that is why that man is an accomplice to rape," prosecutor Brock Belnap told jurors in his closing argument.

Wall spent three days on the stand, frequently sobbing as she described how she felt trapped in a marriage she did not want, to a man she did not like.

She said she repeatedly told Jeffs that she did not want to be married and was uncomfortable with her new husband's sexual advances. Jeffs advised her to pray and to submit to her husband, learn to love him, and bear his children -- or risk losing her "eternal salvation," she said.

She said she initially avoided her husband, hiding in her mother's bedroom. She testified she finally had sex several weeks into her marriage after Steed told her "it was time to be a wife and do your duty."

Afterward, she said, she hid in a bathroom, feeling "dirty and used."

She initially was referred to as "Jane Doe" to protect her privacy because of the sexual nature of the charges. But after the jury received the case, her lawyers released her name to the public.

Steed, who has not been charged with a crime, denied forcing himself on his bride, saying she initiated their first sexual encounter. He said she was nice to him in private, but cold in public.

He said Jeffs counseled them to learn to love each other. Steed cried on the stand as he described his frustration at being rejected.

The 3½-year marriage ended in 2004, after she became pregnant with another man's child. She left the church and is remarried.

Judge James Shumate instructed jurors that under Utah law, a 14-year-old can consent to sex in some circumstances. But there can be no consent, the judge said, if a person under 18 is coerced by someone at least three years older.

Someone can be found guilty if he or she holds a position of "special trust" over another person under 18, the judge instructed.


Jeffs also is facing multiple counts in Arizona of being an accomplice to incest and sex with minors.

He has drawn attention to the polygamous FLDS by allegedly excommunicating male followers and reassigning wives and children, arranging marriages to girls as young as 13, and reducing competition for brides by exiling male teens and young me








Looks like that removing the jurer worked. they have a decision

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm curious why the juror was removed. If the juror was removed because they held out and would not join the rest in a decision, the case will surely get thrown out on appeal, but that's jumping to conclusions not supported by any information that I've seen.....

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm curious why the juror was removed. If the juror was removed because they held out and would not join the rest in a decision, the case will surely get thrown out on appeal, but that's jumping to conclusions not supported by any information that I've seen.....

there also has not been any to dispute it.

seems odd. they have a deadlock. they kick a jurer off and get teh alt. then BOOM! they get a conviction.

 

[sixone]

The judge will be far more concerned about having his decisions appealed than he is about a hung jury. If she was dismissed, there's good reason for it, or at least a reason more beneficial to the defendant.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm curious why the juror was removed. If the juror was removed because they held out and would not join the rest in a decision, the case will surely get thrown out on appeal, but that's jumping to conclusions not supported by any information that I've seen.....

there also has not been any to dispute it.

seems odd. they have a deadlock. they kick a jurer off and get teh alt. then BOOM! they get a conviction.

From a society standpoint is this a bad thing? I mean, you seem to imply the added juror is biased or something. Did they not listen to the same trial? Why do you feel the replacement juror is tainted or has a lesser voice than the original? Do you feel this way about replacement jurors when one is replaced for obviously good reasons (like the original juror was bribed)?

Basically I look at it this way. We can either redo the whole trial again, and often for lesser charges so the new trial is faster, or we can try to fix the deadlock in the original court. You can appeal anyways so why redo the whole trial? Seems to be a better fix than a mistrial.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm curious why the juror was removed. If the juror was removed because they held out and would not join the rest in a decision, the case will surely get thrown out on appeal, but that's jumping to conclusions not supported by any information that I've seen.....

there also has not been any to dispute it.

seems odd. they have a deadlock. they kick a jurer off and get teh alt. then BOOM! they get a conviction.

From a society standpoint is this a bad thing? I mean, you seem to imply the added juror is biased or something. Did they not listen to the same trial? Why do you feel the replacement juror is tainted or has a lesser voice than the original? Do you feel this way about replacement jurors when one is replaced for obviously good reasons (like the original juror was bribed)?

Basically I look at it this way. We can either redo the whole trial again, and often for lesser charges so the new trial is faster, or we can try to fix the deadlock in the original court. You can appeal anyways so why redo the whole trial? Seems to be a better fix than a mistrial.

it brings off the impression of a unfair trail. you are moving jurers off that are for him to bring in some that are set to put him away.

personally i would rather have a hung jury and a retrail then a unfair trail.

but this is not the first case. same thing happened in the peterson trail. Also in the Spector trail the judge gave the jury instructions that were never brought up and the defense has had NO chance to argue against.

i just don't like the way it seems the courts are headed.

 

[DrPizza]

Good. He was convicted.
here

 

[BoberFett]

The justice system is not about justice. It's about scapegoats and conviction rates.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Good. He was convicted.
here

don't get me wrong. i think its good the guy is convicted.


I just don't like the way the courts are doing it.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I feel it is a perversion of justice to swap out a juror solely to end a deadlock. There is a reason most jurisdictions require a unanimous decision.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I feel it is a perversion of justice to swap out a juror solely to end a deadlock. There is a reason most jurisdictions require a unanimous decision.

exactly. trouble is it has happened and seems to be happening more.

 

[ktehmok]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I feel it is a perversion of justice to swap out a juror solely to end a deadlock. There is a reason most jurisdictions require a unanimous decision.

exactly. trouble is it has happened and seems to be happening more.

Makes you wonder how many times this has happened in non-high profile cases.

 

[waggy]

hmm

guess its a none issue. the person that kicked off say she would have found him guilty.

it was a argument between 2 of them. one went to whine to the judge who kicked the other off.

 

[waggy]

hmm now reports are the jurer dismissed was the holdout. she thought he was not guilty and the argument was over facts of the case.


hmm intersting.