1047 users online (209 members and 838 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,530

    WA - Anyone else think this should not be grounds for a mistrial?

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...istrial25.html
    A public defender in a custodial assault case was smacked in the throat by his client during jury selection in court, causing the judge to declare a mistrial and the shaken lawyer to withdraw from the case.

    ....Guards immediately subdued Jacobson, and Judge Paula Casey declared a mistrial because the incident was witnessed by the prospective jurors.
    So, because the jurors saw the real defendant, not the image a defense attorney would want to present, you have to find some new jurors who can be properly mislead, without any exposure to the truth?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...istrial25.html
    So, because the jurors saw the real defendant, not the image a defense attorney would want to present, you have to find some new jurors who can be properly mislead, without any exposure to the truth?

    I do. I'd rather have the process stopped and begun again and not have the case overturned on appeal and remanded back. If its going to have to be done over, better for it to be done while its still in state court.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeana (DP)
    I do. I'd rather have the process stopped and begun again and not have the case overturned on appeal and remanded back. If its going to have to be done over, better for it to be done while its still in state court.
    That's why I think it shouldn't even be grounds for a mistrial - why should this be an appealable issue? It just shouldn't be. The defendant acted like himself, under no pressure to misbehave, no illusions there, no selective showing of one moment outside of context - the jurors were there for the whole thing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,395
    I think the point is the judge wants the jury to base their decision on the facts presented in court, not in something they just happened to see happen in the court room. He is to be tried for the crime he committed, not smacking a guy in the throat.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    That's why I think it shouldn't even be grounds for a mistrial - why should this be an appealable issue? It just shouldn't be. The defendant acted like himself, under no pressure to misbehave, no illusions there, no selective showing of one moment outside of context - the jurors were there for the whole thing.

    There are long lists of things that appeals courts use every day to overturn convictions. There is a 17-year old in Texas who just won his appeal after murdering four teenagers and then trying to burn the yogurt shop they were in. The reason for this? Because he wasn't allowed to cross-examine the other scum bag murderer who decided to take the deal and testify against him. This guy was originally sentenced to die, but that was overturned when they decided that he was too young when he committed these murders. So, instead of this ******* being locked away with no more hoopla, he's wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars and valuable court time because of errors during the trial. We've seen too many of these cases. If the judge can see this may happen to a case before her, I think she should try and prevent it, even if it means taking a few weeks and picking a new jury.

  6. #6
    sharpar's Avatar
    sharpar is offline If dogs dont go to heaven I want to go where they are
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Home of the Alamo
    Posts
    1,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Details
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...istrial25.html
    So, because the jurors saw the real defendant, not the image a defense attorney would want to present, you have to find some new jurors who can be properly mislead, without any exposure to the truth?
    Would be considered prejudical particularily since its an assault case .....

    Agree with J - scratch and start over . If I were the attorney would consider filing charges against him.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,705
    Its a mistrial because it is presumed that after the defendant hits you .. You will no longer be able to defend him to the best of your abilities.

    SO there would be barring any other mistakes grounds for overturning the conviction twice.

    Just start fresh and throw his butt firmly in jail



Similar Threads

  1. IF there is a Mistrial .....
    By sassy_texasbelle2 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 07:24 PM
  2. Shawn's stomping grounds
    By Kimster in forum Hailey Dunn
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-16-2011, 06:06 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 06:41 PM
  4. Rat grounds plane
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 10:50 PM