Proposed New FL. Law-jurors can't profit from service

[passionflower]

GREAT NEWS! Let's hope this becomes law asap!

 

[Melanie]

hmmmm...not sure how I feel about this because in other cases I've been really curious how jurors felt and how they came to their decisions.

Would this be as popular if the jury decided to convict ICA? I did enjoy hearing from the Peterson jurors (that strawberry shortcake gal was rather interesting). They got together and wrote "We the Jury". It's currently unavailable at amazon.com, but you can still get it for the Kindle.

I don't know -- I just think this sounds like sour grapes (IMHO) and my opinion only. I don't want to cut out all future jurors, and if that means they sell an article to People magazine, who feels someone wants to read it, so be it.

Just ask yourself, would you be jumping on the bandwagon if these jurors found her guilty? Would you be against the jurors writing a book if they found her guilty?

Personally, I want future jurors to be able to talk about their experience - paid or not. No, I don't care about this jury or anything they have to say -- but I also don't want this important door into justice closed either. If jurors have to wait 6 months, memories fade, case interest fades, etc.

MOO thanks.

Mel

 

[jenniek]

New York already has this law. Pretty comprehensive. Can't compensate jurors - send them on trips, etc. for talking to the media. I'll see if I can find a link.

Salem

I believe california has it too! iirc MC was on talking about it! -- GREAT LAW

 

[Melanie]

I believe california has it too! iirc MC was on talking about it! -- GREAT LAW

I'm not sure about the timing, but in California, We the Jury was written by some of the jurors and published in 2007.

I wonder if the law came out after that. If you find anything, give us a shout.

Thanks!

Mel

 

[manatee]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne...randolph-wants-to-ban-pay-for-interviews.html

TALLAHASSEE — In light of the attempt by at least one juror in the Casey Anthony murder trial to elicit $50,000 for interviews, state Rep. Scott Randolph says he wants to outlaw the practice.

More @ link

was it juror 11(foreperson) by any chance? :waitasec:

 

[jenniek]

I'm not sure about the timing, but in California, We the Jury was written by some of the jurors and published in 2007.

I wonder if the law came out after that. If you find anything, give us a shout.

Thanks!

Mel

I believe it was passed fairly recently and iirc it is 90 days after, so no problem there.

 

[RTC]

Gosh, in the business world most public companies are very strict on their employees regarding any type of gifts, cash, vacations . It seems the government run agencies should be ultra strict on this type of compensation. Time for change.

Printed Jury Instructions with teaching guides on how to comprehend the law. From what I have been told only oral instructions were given, no printed matter was supplied to the Jury. they should have recieved daily transcripts ,photos etc to their hotel rooms. We want a big job from lay people. The system is looking very weak IMHO

 

[Cher352]

Love the idea and it is needed nationwide..... BUT as long as people listen, watch and read their stories they are sure to find their way around it, like paying licensing fees to someone related to them.

Plus if it did become law some other lawyer will sue stating that the law interferes with some constitution/civil/whatever right.

 

[msinformed]

Love the idea and it is needed nationwide..... BUT as long as people listen, watch and read their stories they are sure to find their way around it, like paying licensing fees to someone related to them.

Plus if it did become law some other lawyer will sue stating that the law interferes with some constitution/civil/whatever right.

Richard Hornsby already has a problem w/ it:

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
@MarkNeJame Well, there is nothing illegal about passing an unconstitutional law...
2 hours ago


Mark NeJame's reply:

MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
@RichardHornsby Have researched. Proposed law allows comment, just not paid for few months.No restriction on speech, just profit & temporary
2 hours ago

 

[cluciano63]

I kind of don't like knee-jerk reaction laws...everytime something major happens, someone wants a new law. And this is something, IMO, that should always have been a law...but I guess better late than never...JMO.

 

[irishbosoxfan]

Richard Hornsby already has a problem w/ it:

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
@MarkNeJame Well, there is nothing illegal about passing an unconstitutional law...
2 hours ago


Mark NeJame's reply:

MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
@RichardHornsby Have researched. Proposed law allows comment, just not paid for few months.No restriction on speech, just profit & temporary
2 hours ago

So what's Hornsby's problem with it?? Free speech?? Wouldn't free be the operative word there?

They can say whatever they want they just can't get paid for it. I don't see a problem.


Anyone here have Mark Nejame on their Twitter? If you do can you ask him to add the language for 2 years to the law instead of 6 months.

I know he can't do it personally but he seems to have an "in" we don't so I figured it can't hurt to ask!

 

[Melanie]

Richard Hornsby already has a problem w/ it:

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
@MarkNeJame Well, there is nothing illegal about passing an unconstitutional law...
2 hours ago


Mark NeJame's reply:

MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
@RichardHornsby Have researched. Proposed law allows comment, just not paid for few months.No restriction on speech, just profit & temporary
2 hours ago

If it's temporary, that's good. I'd just hate to see them hushed forever (which doesn't seem to be the case). IMHO it should be extended to all witnesses as well. Why should folks like Cindy, Tony, etc., etc., make money while the jurors who had to make the decision sit back and watch. If 12 people can't talk, then they all need to be mute.

MOO

Mel

 

[laserdisc10]

Jurors should be required to sign confidentiality clauses, as are imposed elsewhere

Or needs to be legislation prohibiting jurors from benefiting in any way (gifts, trips, new kitchens, etc.) from their jury duties

Would be gratifying if the US followed amendments to double jeopardy laws, similar to the UK

see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm

 

[msinformed]

Mel - encompassing witnesses in this legislation would be much too onerous, imo.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm not sure if I understand why it would be only temporary.

If a juror is going to be influenced by financial gain does it matter when that financial gain will come? Isn't the money there either way?

I am the type that will very much want to understand what happened once I'm ready to do so. I'm just not there yet. I can watch it on tv and I hear the words but my brain is not comprehending what the words mean or something like that.

It sickens me to think that ICA could be a free woman soon because of greed. Just sickens me. If a law like this permanently kept jurors from making money after the trial made it less likely that they would be doing interviews than so be it. I would much rather have monsters like ICA behind bars than understand why a jury decided to send her there.

Its bad enough that defense attorneys appear to be more interested in making money and winning than presenting their case ethically. But that makes me wonder if it is fair for the jury to be prohibited from making money while DTs are able to go out and make a small fortune when the trial is over.

This is a great thread, every one has raised awesome points. It makes me feel good that people are really motivated to make long needed changes, especially since everything about this case has just left me feeling so defeated and hopeless.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Mel - encompassing witnesses in this legislation would be much too onerous, imo.

I understand what you're saying and I think I agree, but why? TIA if you can explain, but if you don't I understand too.

 

[Sjoseph316]

It doesn't matter if a law goes into effect or not, some lawyer will find a loophole like always. It's so sad that EVERYTHING in today's world comes down to money, even the disgusting death of an innocent little girl.

 

[Melanie]

Mel - encompassing witnesses in this legislation would be much too onerous, imo.

Oh I know -- but it's a nice thought I'd give just about anything to keep Cindy quiet for the next 6 months.

Mel

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Oh I know -- but it's a nice thought I'd give just about anything to keep Cindy quiet for the next 6 months.

Mel

Ohhhhhh, I didn't think about that! :crazy:

Can you imagine if she couldn't do that FOREVER?:great::great::great::great:

She could find a loop hole I'm sure, but it would just draw more attention to the fact that she is trying to profit from Caylee's death and willing to break the law to do so.... again :banghead::banghead:

 

[msinformed]

I understand what you're saying and I think I agree, but why? TIA if you can explain, but if you don't I understand too.

Witnesses are subpoenaed to testify for either the State or the defense, or both. Some do so without qualms, others, not so much. They testify relative to specific aspects of the case, and most always are sequestered. I know, in this case, they could follow all testimony online and through the media. However, generally, that isn't the case.

On the other hand, jurors (who also are ordered to appear), once chosen (& let's face it, anyone with a pea brain CAN get out of jury duty, there are many, many ways, just as there are those who have an agenda & will do whatever to be chosen), are in the Court room to perform a duty, which is to hear all of the testimony, view evidence, etc. from both sides. This so they may weigh it and render an unbiased verdict after the cases have been presented. They hear it all, see it all ........ as citizens of this Country, it is their civic duty to render a verdict based on the aforesaid AND based on the Court's Jury Instructions (Charge). They, the jury, are, if you will, a collective body bound to come to a conclusion .... G, NG, or Hung.

Individual witnesses are just that, individuals, most "doing what they are ordered to do per a subpoena."

To include witnesses in this proposed law, imo, would be very troublesome and possible kill the bill altogether.

The original intent would be lost - that being, imo, to dissuade citizens from 'working' at getting on a jury in hopes of gaining monetarily down the road.

Now, is that just about as clear as mud? :crazy: My brain fried on the day of the verdict, I haven't been the same since. :banghead: