Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,877
- Reaction score
- 415,798
A new episode of the Fall of the House of Murdaugh docuseries titled "The Clerk in Question" was released on 9/25.
After viewing the latest episode of the docuseries, I'm more inclined to believe that RH (Ms. Becky) most likely embellished her experiences described in the book. I can definitely see where it seems easier for her to use or make reference to the jurors-- almost as if interjecting them works as an endorsement of her own thoughts and experience than I see the Clerk taking any overt action that violated AM's civil rights-- warranting AM be granted a do-over!
"The Clerk in Question" episode also reminded me of Russell Lafitte's trial and what happened with his jurors which I don't recall getting much attention. Here, two jurors were dismissed during deliberations, and rather than declare a mistrial, U.S. District Court Judge Gergel replaced them with two alternates.
Less than an hour after replacing the dismissed jurors, they returned with a verdict. (Yes, Gergel is the same Federal Judge that presided over Fleming and most recently AM's guilty plea).
November 2022
Attorneys for Russell Laffitte, the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank, filed a motion in federal court Tuesday asking for a hearing on “jury issues” in the November trial at the federal courthouse in Charleston.
After a three-week trial, a jury deliberated for 11 hours before finding Laffitte guilty on six counts of bank and wire fraud. But that guilty verdict only came after two of the original jurors were dismissed by Judge Richard Gergel and replaced with alternates who had sat through the trial but had not taken part in the jury’s previous deliberation.
Laffitte’s attorney Bart Daniel is asking that the court accept affidavits from the two dismissed jurors, but keep them under seal to protect the jurors’ identities.
In Tuesday’s court filing, the jurors are identified only as “Juror No. 88” and “Juror No. 93.” The affidavits from the two will describe “improper influences on jury deliberations, her experience as a juror, and the circumstances surrounding her removal,” according to the filing.
[..]
Late on the day jurors started their deliberations after Laffitte’s trial, Gergel reconvened both sides to read several notes the judge received from the jury.
One juror indicated that she needed to leave the courthouse to take scheduled medication, but also indicated she was feeling pressured to change her vote. Other jurors wrote to the judge claiming a “hostile” juror was refusing to engage in deliberations or to follow some of the judge’s instructions. Another juror reported feeling anxious and asked to be removed.
After meeting privately with the jurors, Gergel dismissed both the juror needing medication and the anxious juror who reportedly told him she was unable to continue serving her function as a juror.
The dismissals apparently solved the “hostile” juror issue. After being sent back into deliberation with two replacement jurors, the jury returned with a unanimous guilty verdict in less than an hour.
Before the jury returned, Laffitte’s attorneys raised an objection to at least one dismissal, but Gergel said he felt he had no choice as that juror indicated she was unable to continue.
“She was shaking as she talked,” Gergel told the court.
Gergel indicated that the situation was highly unusual, and one he couldn’t recall facing in his 13 years on the bench.
“We’re in virgin territory,” he said.
Laffitte’s attorneys have already asked the court for a new trial, arguing that removing a juror who indicated she was dissenting from the consensus of the rest of the jury was a “miscarriage of justice.” If the original jury had failed to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial and federal prosecutors would have had to bring the case against Laffitte all over again.
Daniel and co-counsel Matt Austin say in their request for a new trial that they did not expect Gergel to dismiss the two jurors when he told the court he would be meeting with them about their concerns. They suggest the judge could have instead halted deliberations for the evening and bring the original jury back the next day to continue.
__________________________________________
The Court denied Lafitte's request for a new trial.
The original jury had been deliberating for 10 hours when two jurors were replaced by alternate jurors. Less than an hour after replacing the two dismissed jurors, they returned with a verdict!
I have to question whether or not the jurors were instructed that they needed to begin deliberations anew or with a clean slate-- given the quick return.
Learning that behind closed doors, the government referred to the Juror who allegedly needed to take medication (in 2 hours), and was feeling pressured to change her vote as the "toxic juror," I wonder if she really needed to take medication or just said she did -- the reason cited for excusing the juror.
From the US District Court ORDER AND OPINION dated March 6, 2023:
Defendant submitted his initial post trial motion for a new trial on December 6, 2022, arguing that the Court had improperly replaced two jurors outside the presence of the Defendant, denying him the right to be present at all significant criminal proceedings. (Dkt. No. 224 at 13).
3 The jury, with the two former alternates, began deliberating at 8:33 p.m. and returned a verdict at 9:22 p.m. (Dkt. No. 223 at 63).
Trial courts have broad discretion regarding the replacement of jurors. Appellate courts have recognized that the trial judge is “in the best position to view a juror’s demeanor and determine whether she is able to shoulder the obligations of jury service.” United States v. De Oleo, 697 F.3d 338, 342 (6th Cir. 2012).
“Courts have not construed Rule 24(c)(1) to create such a high bar to replacing jurors,” and it is rare to find a trial court abused its discretion in replacing a juror with an alternate. United States v. Penn, 870 F.3d 164, 170 (3rd Cir. 2017).
After viewing the latest episode of the docuseries, I'm more inclined to believe that RH (Ms. Becky) most likely embellished her experiences described in the book. I can definitely see where it seems easier for her to use or make reference to the jurors-- almost as if interjecting them works as an endorsement of her own thoughts and experience than I see the Clerk taking any overt action that violated AM's civil rights-- warranting AM be granted a do-over!
"The Clerk in Question" episode also reminded me of Russell Lafitte's trial and what happened with his jurors which I don't recall getting much attention. Here, two jurors were dismissed during deliberations, and rather than declare a mistrial, U.S. District Court Judge Gergel replaced them with two alternates.
Less than an hour after replacing the dismissed jurors, they returned with a verdict. (Yes, Gergel is the same Federal Judge that presided over Fleming and most recently AM's guilty plea).
November 2022
Attorneys for Russell Laffitte, the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank, filed a motion in federal court Tuesday asking for a hearing on “jury issues” in the November trial at the federal courthouse in Charleston.
After a three-week trial, a jury deliberated for 11 hours before finding Laffitte guilty on six counts of bank and wire fraud. But that guilty verdict only came after two of the original jurors were dismissed by Judge Richard Gergel and replaced with alternates who had sat through the trial but had not taken part in the jury’s previous deliberation.
Laffitte’s attorney Bart Daniel is asking that the court accept affidavits from the two dismissed jurors, but keep them under seal to protect the jurors’ identities.
In Tuesday’s court filing, the jurors are identified only as “Juror No. 88” and “Juror No. 93.” The affidavits from the two will describe “improper influences on jury deliberations, her experience as a juror, and the circumstances surrounding her removal,” according to the filing.
[..]
Late on the day jurors started their deliberations after Laffitte’s trial, Gergel reconvened both sides to read several notes the judge received from the jury.
One juror indicated that she needed to leave the courthouse to take scheduled medication, but also indicated she was feeling pressured to change her vote. Other jurors wrote to the judge claiming a “hostile” juror was refusing to engage in deliberations or to follow some of the judge’s instructions. Another juror reported feeling anxious and asked to be removed.
After meeting privately with the jurors, Gergel dismissed both the juror needing medication and the anxious juror who reportedly told him she was unable to continue serving her function as a juror.
The dismissals apparently solved the “hostile” juror issue. After being sent back into deliberation with two replacement jurors, the jury returned with a unanimous guilty verdict in less than an hour.
Before the jury returned, Laffitte’s attorneys raised an objection to at least one dismissal, but Gergel said he felt he had no choice as that juror indicated she was unable to continue.
“She was shaking as she talked,” Gergel told the court.
Gergel indicated that the situation was highly unusual, and one he couldn’t recall facing in his 13 years on the bench.
“We’re in virgin territory,” he said.
Laffitte’s attorneys have already asked the court for a new trial, arguing that removing a juror who indicated she was dissenting from the consensus of the rest of the jury was a “miscarriage of justice.” If the original jury had failed to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial and federal prosecutors would have had to bring the case against Laffitte all over again.
Daniel and co-counsel Matt Austin say in their request for a new trial that they did not expect Gergel to dismiss the two jurors when he told the court he would be meeting with them about their concerns. They suggest the judge could have instead halted deliberations for the evening and bring the original jury back the next day to continue.
__________________________________________
The Court denied Lafitte's request for a new trial.
The original jury had been deliberating for 10 hours when two jurors were replaced by alternate jurors. Less than an hour after replacing the two dismissed jurors, they returned with a verdict!
I have to question whether or not the jurors were instructed that they needed to begin deliberations anew or with a clean slate-- given the quick return.
Learning that behind closed doors, the government referred to the Juror who allegedly needed to take medication (in 2 hours), and was feeling pressured to change her vote as the "toxic juror," I wonder if she really needed to take medication or just said she did -- the reason cited for excusing the juror.
From the US District Court ORDER AND OPINION dated March 6, 2023:
Defendant submitted his initial post trial motion for a new trial on December 6, 2022, arguing that the Court had improperly replaced two jurors outside the presence of the Defendant, denying him the right to be present at all significant criminal proceedings. (Dkt. No. 224 at 13).
3 The jury, with the two former alternates, began deliberating at 8:33 p.m. and returned a verdict at 9:22 p.m. (Dkt. No. 223 at 63).
Trial courts have broad discretion regarding the replacement of jurors. Appellate courts have recognized that the trial judge is “in the best position to view a juror’s demeanor and determine whether she is able to shoulder the obligations of jury service.” United States v. De Oleo, 697 F.3d 338, 342 (6th Cir. 2012).
“Courts have not construed Rule 24(c)(1) to create such a high bar to replacing jurors,” and it is rare to find a trial court abused its discretion in replacing a juror with an alternate. United States v. Penn, 870 F.3d 164, 170 (3rd Cir. 2017).
