SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those people are crazy that post on GOLO. IMO Some of the post does not even make any sense at all.

Right? What's next, investing posts on Topix to see if they're true? Good Lord!

I get why the judge is doing this though, he has an obligation, but SMH at WRAL. I mean really.
pffff
 
I just skimmed through the WRAL Facebook page and all their posts about the trial between Friday morning when the jury got the case and the time a verdict was reached have been deleted. I definitely remember getting a post on Friday afternoon saying they had adjourned for the day without reaching a verdict. Oh, I hope this is nothing!
 
Wral just reported on TV that the person claimed they were a hairdresser of a friend of one juror that posted 2 different posts on WRAL FB before verdict. And somewhere said 7-5 and this morning on TTV one of the jurors did mention a 7-5 at one point.

I really hope this comes to nothing and it is a troll.
 
What was the reasoning for WRAL even reporting it? And why would they wait until after the verdict was read if that is when in fact it happened. jmo

They are reporting it because the judge made comments about it and is ordering the SBI to investigate. The fact that the judge deemed it credible enough to address it with both PT and DT and get SBI involved makes it news.
 
They are reporting it because the judge made comments about it and is ordering the SBI to investigate. The fact that the judge deemed it credible enough to address it with both PT and DT and get SBI involved makes it news.

No, she's saying why did WRAL report the posts that were on their FB to begin with.

I need to know WHEN the comments were made about the split on the jury being 7-5 or whatever. It could have came after the verdict was read and jurors allowed to talk about it. IDK we'll see.
 
They are reporting it because the judge made comments about it and is ordering the SBI to investigate. The fact that the judge deemed it credible enough to address it with both PT and DT and get SBI involved makes it news.

I thought they WRAL were the ones that reported it to the judge. Maybe I misunderstood. jmo
 
Hmmmmm..........

On second thought, I don't believe it for a minute!

This jury was too articulate. There is no way. Besides, the judge had them turn off their cell phones when they began deliberating. I too think it's just a troll spreading rumors. I hope they're proud of themselves. Now they can smile for the camera when they see the SBI at their door. :mad:

I'll wait for them to finish their probe. JY can only hope that's what happened and he's given a third go-round.

I was very close friends and carpooled with someone on a jury long ago. She was gone 4 days a week and just worked on Fridays for about a month or so. She never ONCE said what the trial was, nothing! We didn't ask either......She told us when it was all over. She was an alternate, btw, but agreed with the verdict reached, which turned out to be HIGHLY controversial at the time.

Murder of an under-cover officer in a drug deal. That jury was brought out and raked over the coals everywhere for the not guilty verdict. Seems according to the rules, the guy THOUGHT the under-cover guy was trying to rip him off and the accused claimed the LE drew first. Nothing to dispute it and from all evidence, it COULD have been that way. But COULD have wasn't good enough. So the slime walked and the jury hated themselves for giving that verdict too.

The short is, these jurors most likely didn't break the rules. It's probably someone who WISHES someone did so they could reverse the verdict.

Win/win for whoever thought of this, UNLESS they get caught. But if he'd walked and this was found out or investigated, wouldn't have made any difference, I do not THINK as double jeoprady would apply. IF it could have ANY merit at all, JY could at the least, get a new trial.

I pray it's not true!

JMHO
and all that
fran
 
There were never more than ONE NG and that was on Friday and that didn't last long according to the two jurors who spoke today.
The split on Monday was between the G and the Undecided. This person is saying it was split G vs NG.

It was my understanding that on Friday, there were 5 G's, 7 who had not decided guilty? I think that matches up enough to investigate further.

However, there's still a good chance this woman was just blowing smoke.

And I'm not sure there was ever a "deadlock" either.
 
I just went and had a quick look. Someone said they knew a hairdresser of a juror, and reported what the vote was at the time. Then the comment disappeared. 1. Just the mere fact that it originated with GOLO makes it suspect, read more than 3 comments there and your IQ will take an immediate nosedive. 2. A hairdresser? Really? Husband maybe, wife or best friend, but a hairdresser? Nahhhh. The way rumor runs rampant in Raleigh and esp on that board with all its misstatement of fact, if I were the judge I'd squash it too. Ignoring it would let it grow.
 
For those who followed the CA trial...remember that we all wanted to go back and change something but there was nothing that could be done to over-turn the NG verdict. We filed petitions, complained, etc..... Now, comeon.. there HAD to be some sort of mis-conduct there, yet nothing could be done. So, I'm not worried. And as someone stated in the other thread, it was probably one of the Jason supporters stirring up trouble.
 
Letter to SBI:
http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

Wow... the posts seem to match up with what the juror said today, to a certain extent, though not entirely.

It also appears as if the last letter of the pdf I linked to may be to one of the jurors on the case. I hope not, and if it is, I hope they edit out her name as soon as possible.

Yes, I believe that is the foreperson's name. She was interviewed by phone on In Session this morning.
 
It was my understanding that on Friday, there were 5 G's, 7 who had not decided guilty? I think that matches up enough to investigate further.

However, there's still a good chance this woman was just blowing smoke.

The jurors today said there was only ONE NG on the initial vote Friday but they moved over to Undecided fairly quickly. There was never 3 or 5 guilty hold outs. Monday it was mostly guilty with a few undecided. Maybe in this FB poster's world she took the undecided as being Not Guilty jurors. IDK.
Still don't buy it.
 
Yes, I believe that is the foreperson's name. She was interviewed by phone on In Session this morning.

Then perhaps they are contacting her, not because of suspected misconduct, but to have her go into more detail about her comments on the air this morning regarding voting? I hope so!
 
There were never more than ONE NG and that was on Friday and that didn't last long according to the two jurors who spoke today.
The split on Monday was between the G and the Undecided. This person is saying it was split G vs NG.

Ding ding ding it's FLUFF!:woohoo:
TY!!!
 
Ding ding ding it's FLUFF!:woohoo:
TY!!!

I wish I could share your glass half full gngr~snap.. I usually am that type:what:

If it does turn out to be fluff I hope it scares the "fluff" out of the person that posted that on a FACEBOOK page...
 
Oh noooooooooooooo!

You know if it comes out he talked about the case the entire time the DT is going to use that on appeal.:banghead:

I am sickened to hear this and if the Judge ordered the SBI to investigate it must be pretty serious and he must have a good faith basis for doing so. (GROAN!)

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
3,306
Total visitors
3,509

Forum statistics

Threads
592,136
Messages
17,963,859
Members
228,696
Latest member
NMR0715
Back
Top