2011.07.07 Media's Motion for Release of Juror Names

[Rhyme & Reason]

Well, I think this case should be classified as a special case, thats for sure.

Why? Casey Anthony is not special in any way, shape or form.

 

[Rhyme & Reason]

Bottom line is it's the law that the names are to be public. Should we just ignore the law because something bad might happen? Please. This silly hysteria about raving mobs waiting to kill and injure people is nonsense. There is no proof that anything like that will happen. Let's not label the public as irrational nutjobs when FCA is the criminal in this case.moo

:goodpost:

 

[Chris_Texas]

Are Grand Jury members name made public?

No.

Grand Juries serve a special function and have special investigative powers.

Grand Juries do not decide guilt or innocence.

Even so, the issue of Grand Jury secrecy was (and maybe still is) contested. (EDit: and I am astonishingly sure that I have heard of more incidents of tampering with our secret Grand Juries than I have ever heard with our regular juries).

 

[Rhyme & Reason]

I mean its pretty bad when the media has had to like almost quell and plead to their viewers to not do something rash! Imo, I think a lot of rage comes not because Casey is free, its that some were wrong and just cant deal with it in a healthy way. Thats why I think if any laws come out of this it should be to protect juries from online and real threats.

BBM - Seriously? IMO she's a murderer. IMO I'm not wrong! Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

 

[Chris_Texas]

To be clear: The demand for the release of the Juror names in this case has absolutely nothing to do with this case at all. I don't really care who they are and I have absolutely no interest in hearing anything that they have to say. This is not a quest for justice for Caylee, but justice for everyone.

Our system of justice, the same justice we demanded for Caylee, is built upon this foundation of public trials and full discosure. Part of the reason we have so few issues with judicial system corruption is this openness.

 

[Chablis]

BBM - Seriously? IMO she's a murderer. IMO I'm not wrong! Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

I understand how you feel. But she has bee acquitted of murder. And I agree not guilty is not the same as innocent.

 

[grandmaj]

No I respectfully disagree. We can never make exceptions in our system of justice except in very rare instances where there is real and necessary need. To do so removes the integrity of the system. NEVER.

This case is not special. That is what Baez made the jury believe. But they are not special, this case was not special.

 

[mytoes]

The jurors who have spoken so far have all proven to be giant <modsnip>. They seem to be unintelligent, uninterested in evidence, and easily persuaded by lots of silly talk. These are the people that get taken in by Nigerian lottery scams & such. I'd be interested to know what kind of decision making skills they exercise in their own lives.

 

[cluciano63]

No I respectfully disagree. We can never make exceptions in our system of justice except in very rare instances where there is real and necessary need. To do so removes the integrity of the system. NEVER.

This case is not special. That is what Baez made the jury believe. But they are not special, this case was not special.

The reaction to the verdict makes this case special and/or different IMO.
But I agree they should be released, just not right away, not in any case right away. And when they are released, it should not be annouced, just let those who are looking for the public records go and find them if they really want them. I don't think any jurors names need to be published in the media, for example. Those who have legitimate issues or questions will get the info and those who are overcome with emotion by a verdict will have had a chance to rethink any hasty reactions. JMO

 

[Chris_Texas]

The reaction to the verdict makes this case special and/or different IMO.
But I agree they should be released, just not right away, not in any case right away. And when they are released, it should not be annouced, just let those who are looking for the public records go and find them if they really want them. I don't think any jurors names need to be published in the media, for example. Those who have legitimate issues or questions will get the info and those who are overcome with emotion by a verdict will have had a chance to rethink any hasty reactions. JMO

To be clear... you want them to follow the law, just not right now?

 

[LambChop]

No.

Grand Juries serve a special function and have special investigative powers.

Grand Juries do not decide guilt or innocence.

Even so, the issue of Grand Jury secrecy was (and maybe still is) contested. (EDit: and I am astonishingly sure that I have heard of more incidents of tampering with our secret Grand Juries than I have ever heard with our regular juries).

I'm curious as to how one gets names of those sitting on the Grand Jury when their names are secret. jmo

 

[cluciano63]

To be clear... you want them to follow the law, just not right now?

No, my preference would be that the law always allows a period of time before jurors names are released. I don't mean just in this case.

 

[Chris_Texas]

No, my preference would be that the law always allows a period of time before jurors names are released. I don't mean just in this case.

So again, you are in favor of following the law and the constition, but just not right now.

I suspect most of us are here because we want to see the good guys win and the bad guys go to jail. Usually the bad guys are the ones who break the laws. This particular thread is not about a missing little girl and a mom who felt she could do whatever the hell she wanted. This thread is about a bunch of missing jurors and a judge who feels he can ignore the law based upon nothing more significant than his feelings and fears. The victim in this thread wasn't found with duct tape, she is wearing a blindfold.

 

[cluciano63]

So again, you are in favor of following the law and the constition, but just not right now.

I suspect most of us are here because we want to see the good guys win and the bad guys go to jail. Usually the bad guys are the ones who break the laws. This particular thread is not about a missing little girl and a mom who felt she could do whatever the hell she wanted. This thread is about a bunch of missing jurors and a judge who feels he can ignore the law based upon nothing more significant than his feelings and fears. The victim in this thread wasn't found with duct tape, she is wearing a blindfold.

Please don't tell me what I am in favor of, that is not what I said. I said I wish the law already existed that made a waiting period for the names of all jurors to be released, in any trial.

 

[JBean]

I can't acces this site but it says: The Joyful Child Foundation in Memory of Samantha Runnion - General ... The
jurors did what they were instructed to do, don't think the blame lies on them.
... It's a good thing the judge has sealed their names, so many angry people and
... www.facebook.com/TheJoyfulChildFoundation

That's right the judge did seal those names from the earlier trial. Were they ever unsealed?
Man, I went to closing arguments for the Runnion murder with Fran and we were spittin' distance from that <modsnip>. very sad trial indeed.

So, I assume it is specific to CA that the jurors names can be sealed?

 

[grandmaj]

According to Judge Perry he said "the best I can do is have a cooling off period". Case law provides there is an absolute right to the names. But he can stall a bit.

 

[askfornina]

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-n...l-bars-jurors-from-selling-stories-ar-244864/

if this is being discussed else ware please direct me toward it.

i for one really think this is a terrible idea. brilliant, another law designed to protect citizens from..oh right, nothing. i understand why this man is upset...actually, i understand why this man wants to get re-elected. but it's making a law for a "problem" that over the long term, doesn't exist.

 

[kgeaux]

No indication about how long the cooling off period will be? Could it be months?

 

[askfornina]

No indication about how long the cooling off period will be? Could it be months?

at least nine months according to that article

 

[rotterdam]

Please don't tell me what I am in favor of, that is not what I said. I said I wish the law already existed that made a waiting period for the names of all jurors to be released, in any trial.

I would suspect that HHBP already has some leeway in that by some Statute. But he can not seal the names indefinitely. IMO, a question for the lawyers thread.