SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[Allusonz]

I understand the issues you see. It's interesting the defense team didn't see some of these same things as a problem, particularly with regard to the judge. Nor did the defense seem to have a big concern with the lack of a rape kit. The defense conceded early on that no one sexually attacked MY (one reason was they wanted to point their finger at the sister).

As for the rest of the items on the list, I don't think they'll create a winning appeal. This judge in particular is admired in general by all sides and he is the senior and supervising superior court judge. JY is toast, IMO.

Thanks Madeleine. So many things in this case just left me hanging.

They did object. They asked for it to be on record. The judge overruled them but those objections will remain on record.

 

[citygirl]

My point exactly. It is not about a glove.

It is about one individual from LE that did something that put the integrity of the investigation in doubt which in turn casts doubt on the other LE that were involed in the investigation.

It happens more often than many think...

As far as I know MF never planted a glove. He used the N word, for sure, which is why he lost his credibility. That really had nothing to do with the case. It was a side issue was it not?
Are you saying that LE in this case lacked integrity? This is the reason JY was found guilty?
If so, what exactly did they do?

 

[Allusonz]

As far as I know MF never planted a glove. He used the N word, for sure, which is why he lost his credibility. That really had nothing to do with the case. It was a side issue was it not?
Are you saying that LE in this case lacked integrity? This is the reason JY was found guilty?
If so, what exactly did they do?

Think we may be getting off topic here but will post this for you.

"on September 6, 1995, the defense asked Fuhrman whether he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution right against self-incrimination"

Mark Fuhrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Madeleine74]

Oh my lord about says it all, Mark Fuhrman planting the glove, please.

I couldn't believe anyone would fall for the defense's assertion about that glove. Fuhrman was the 17th person at the crime scene. 16 people before him and his partner testified and said there was no 2nd glove at the Bundy scene for anyone to take to OJ's house (even if they had wanted to). Amazing how easy it is for the masses to be fooled.

The way invoking the 5th amendment works is you have to invoke it for every question, not just selected questions. If you answer even one question, then you are giving up your 5th amendment rights to not self-incriminate. So even innocuous questions have to be answered the same way. Of course the Simpson defense team knew that very well, so they put in questions to make it look super bad. More smoke 'n mirrors and big games being played.

But back to the JY case. No one invoked or had to invoke their 5th amendment rights. Whatever objections exist are on the record. GritGuy posted the statute that will guide the judge in case there was any texting occurring. The chances for a mistrial, based on what has been said and speculated are slim.

 

[citygirl]

Think we may be getting off topic here but will post this for you.

"on September 6, 1995, the defense asked Fuhrman whether he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution right against self-incrimination"

Mark Fuhrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I still don't believe that he planted evidence.

 

[gritguy]

I don't know if he planted evidence or not, but my firm was local counsel on the side of the woman who had the tapes of MF using the word about which he was later impeached, so I was at the hearing when Cochran and Bailey came to try to secure those tapes to use in the OJ case. In person, Cochran did a great job arguing. The judge ruled against him but was overruled by the court of appeals. Nevertheless, I was impressed by his courtroom presence. Bailey didn't make an oral argument.

 

[Berry]

I think I will wait for the SBI investigation before I make any predictions on mistrial or appeals. Particularly since it is taking so long.

Hmmmmmm this IS appearing to be a long 'SBI' probe doesn't it folks???? Here in Australia, where I reside and continue to ponder, the length and apparent silly Facebook comments has resulted in this perplexingly in depth investigation. Hopefully it is because JS ( Judge S) insisted it be thorough.

 

[Talina]

Hmmmmmm this IS appearing to be a long 'SBI' probe doesn't it folks???? Here in Australia, where I reside and continue to ponder, the length and apparent silly Facebook comments has resulted in this perplexingly in depth investigation. Hopefully it is because JS ( Judge S) insisted it be thorough.

There was an article early last week, right after the investigation was announced, that SBI was quoted as saying it could take days or weeks to take care of the investigation. I'm not so sure we should be reading into anything at this point. It's barely been over a week.

IMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Everything is slower in the south. The wheels of justice move at a glacial pace.

 

[cody100]

South has nothing to do with this. It is a very serious allegation. If there were nothing to it, it would already be resolved. The SBI is extremely thorough and this probably could take a while to completely investigate. I had wanted this to be a clean verdict without any questions of outside influence or communication. Sadly, it is looking like this was not the case, and our justice system may have been compromised.MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

Do you suppose this Facebook issue is at the top of their list of things to do? I'm imagining a very busy SBI agency and thinking they have many priorities and this may not be their #1 priority.

It's been about a week. How long do you think it should take to do an investigation? I guess they have to write some kind of official report with their findings, even if the findings indicate no juror misconduct.

Considering the SBI said it might take them several weeks and this was said even before they started to look into the matter, I was not expecting an answer after 6 business days of them receiving Stephens' letter.

 

[indicat]

And would you use Brad Cooper as that horse either? Would he be your poster boy for a wrongful conviction? No SBI problem there.

Now Ryan Ferguson of MS. That case is one that will break your heart and that is a wrongfully convicted person, based on the weird and faulty 'dreams' of his friend, who confessed to the murder and then said Ryan was there too.

As for the SBI probe in JY's case, I imagine it does take some time to run down the calls and text messages and interview all 12 jurors and anyone they may have talked to, even innocently. Probes can be...ummm....intrusive (I hear).

OT, the Ryan Ferguson case does break my heart. Now there is someone wrongfully convicted.

 

[cody100]

Well, this type of investigation would most likely get top priority. What would make anyone think JS does not command speedy resolve to this issue? I would think he wants the truth and a quick resolution to the issue at hand. MOO

 

[gritguy]

To my knowledge the request JS made for an SBI investigation before the JY issue, on a different but also highly important matter (not related to the JY case), is still pending as well. JS also has not requested the SBI to bump the JY matter ahead of other things the SBI is working on (including the matter he had previously asked them to check on), and they are working on a lot of things.

Whether the SBI finds anything JS will find of material interest, I do not think the period of time that elapsed so far says anything about how the investigation is going, or even if it is well underway, based on the speed of SBI's handling of other matters.

I too would have thought they could have knocked this out quickly one way or the other, but how they allocate resources and the time they put on individual tasks is up to them and we just don't know what the status is.

 

[gracielee]

To my knowledge the request JS made for an SBI investigation before the JY issue, on a different but also highly important matter (not related to the JY case), is still pending as well. JS also has not requested the SBI to bump the JY matter ahead of other things the SBI is working on (including the matter he had previously asked them to check on), and they are working on a lot of things.

Whether the SBI finds anything JS will find of material interest, I do not think the period of time that elapsed so far says anything about how the investigation is going, or even if it is well underway, based on the speed of SBI's handling of other matters.

I too would have thought they could have knocked this out quickly one way or the other, but how they allocate resources and the time they put on individual tasks is up to them and we just don't know what the status is.

I too have been following JS previous request for an SBI investigation on another unrelated matter. While the JY/jury matter is important, it certainly isn't the hottest pan on the stove, so to speak. IMO It's not as if the SBI is sitting around all day just waiting for something to do.

 

[gracielee]

Well, this type of investigation would most likely get top priority. What would make anyone think JS does not command speedy resolve to this issue? I would think he wants the truth and a quick resolution to the issue at hand. MOO

Somehow I doubt JY is at the top of JS's *list of things to do*, let alone the SBI's. MOO Following a couple of the other SBI probes right now that to me anyway seem far more critical. It's not like JY's going anywhere soon. :fence:

 

[the couger]

Somehow I doubt JY is at the top of JS's *list of things to do*, let alone the SBI's. MOO Following a couple of the other SBI probes right now that to me anyway seem far more critical. It's not like JY's going anywhere soon. :fence:

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think the integrity of JS court room is on the line here and he wants this investigated and investigated NOW..
He had to remove two potential jurors before the trial began. This social networking has been a thorn in his side from day one of the second trial. I have a feeling he is irate. MOO

 

[gritguy]

Somehow I doubt JY is at the top of JS's *list of things to do*, let alone the SBI's. MOO Following a couple of the other SBI probes right now that to me anyway seem far more critical. It's not like JY's going anywhere soon. :fence:

For once and finally, his location and actions are clear. No unplugging cameras and propping doors open now! :jail:

The Hampton is a lot easier to escape than Central Prison!

 

[Talina]

I don't think, for some, it will matter if SBI comes back and says that their investigation didn't turn up anything misconduct activity by the jury.

SBI will get accused of sweeping it under the rug to save the conviction and avoid a new trial.

On the other hand, if they do report misconduct, and Judge Stephens finds it does not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial, he will be accused of sweeping it under the rug.

Short of SBI finding something that screams out for a new trial, there are some that will refuse to believe the report.

I wouldn't want to be any of them in this situation. It is a no win no matter how it tumbles.

I am curious to hear the report. I'm not expecting the report to find misconduct that had any weight on the jury verdict, I'd still like to know if texts were sent to a hairdresser about how the count was going and if not, then what the heck happens to someone that starts nonsense rumors like this and causes tax payer dollars to investigate this activity.

That's what I'm waiting to hear about - what really happened.

IMO

 

[gracielee]

I don't think, for some, it will matter if SBI comes back and says that their investigation didn't turn up anything misconduct activity by the jury.

SBI will get accused of sweeping it under the rug to save the conviction and avoid a new trial.

On the other hand, if they do report misconduct, and Judge Stephens finds it does not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial, he will be accused of sweeping it under the rug.

Short of SBI finding something that screams out for a new trial, there are some that will refuse to believe the report.

I wouldn't want to be any of them in this situation. It is a no win no matter how it tumbles.

I am curious to hear the report. I'm not expecting the report to find misconduct that had any weight on the jury verdict, I'd still like to know if texts were sent to a hairdresser about how the count was going and if not, then what the heck happens to someone that starts nonsense rumors like this and causes tax payer dollars to investigate this activity.

That's what I'm waiting to hear about - what really happened.

IMO

I agree. I know JS is involved in an SBI investigation of another judge and their DUI cases being fixed in some way. Numerous cases of possible judicial misconduct that began prior to and during the JY case. I also am curious as to the finding in the JY case, but honestly doubt it tops judicial misconduct if that turns out to be the case. JS is also involved in numerous high profile upcoming cases. He appears to be a busy busy man.