Now They Say So
The L.A. Times reports: 2 Jurors Now Say Jackson Is Guilty:
Two of the 12 jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson of child-molestation charges said Monday that they were pressured to do so by other jurors and now regret their decision.
The jurors — Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman — made their statements to interviewer Rita Cosby on cable network MSNBC.
“People just wouldn’t take their blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there,” said Hultman, 62, of Santa Maria, Calif., where the trial was held.
“People”? Weren’t you on that jury, ma’am?
Get a load of the title of her upcoming book:
As are a number of other jurors, both Hultman and Cook, 79, are planning to write books about their five months on the high-profile case. Cook’s will be titled “Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird” and Hultman’s will be called “The Deliberator,” according to Larry Garrison, who said he will help co-write both projects.
For once I am going to have to agree with Thomas Mesereau:
[Jackson’s] lead defense attorney, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., discounted the jurors’ interview Monday as “embarrassing and outrageous.”
That’s exactly right. If you think someone is “guilty as sin,” the time to express that opinion is in the jury room, not in a book you write after voting not guilty and setting them “free as a bird.” I’d like to think that not one American will buy either of these books.
And of course, I know they will.
P.S. Although the L.A. Times prints this story today, the story is actually several days old. I e-mailed one of the other jurors a few days ago for her reaction, and she sent me one via e-mail — but I am still awaiting her permission to print it on the blog.
UPDATE: We may have to wait a while for the response to be printed; the juror wishes to remain off the record for now. I’m hopeful that she’ll give me a wide-ranging and on-the-record interview in the coming weeks.
Hultman and Cook had their chance to speak up during jury deliberations. Now they should STFU!!
docdave (c42d7b) — 8/9/2005 @ 9:04 amGet a load of this choice quote from Eleanor Einstein-Cook:
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 8/9/2005 @ 9:07 amI wish there was some way to silence jurors after service. It is a natural temptation to want attention and the only way to get it is to tell the media you have second thoughts or something odd took place in deliberations.
After convictions the defense lawyers also fish for the slightest mistake or appearance of a mistake in jury behavior. And since there are no perfect human procedures or memories the most skillful attorneys can always constuct some hypothesis of error.
Again, I don’t know what the solution is. But jury second-guessing is a rot. Perhaps there could be a second judge who merely observes jury activity but says nothing. Afterwards the observer would state that jury behaved properly or it did not. If the former then appeals based on jury behavior would not be permitted.
I notice more courts are allowing jurors to make notes and submit written questions. This is a good trend – it was utter nonsense to handicap jurors trying to follow complex evidence. But the court should destroy the notes upon verdict.
KenS (ce24d7) — 8/9/2005 @ 12:09 pmPatterico:
My favorite quotation from the story:
Well, um, actually Ms. Cook, yes it is!
Not-too-late would have been during the deliberations, when the votes of you and the other late juror could have forced a mistrial and possibly a retrial.
I’m one of those folks who agrees with the title of Cook’s book… but she has already screwed the pooch by acquiescing in the verdict and cannot resurrect that horse now.
(And while we’re at it, we might as well bite the whole hog, grabbing the bull by the tail and looking the fact in its face. May as well be hanged for a sheep lying down with the lion. If wishes were horses, Ms. Cook, then beggars would be a different color.)
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/9/2005 @ 3:44 pmAccepting everything at face value, I see this as an example of a peculiar case of moral cowardice: the jurors in question believed Jackson to be guilty but went along with the not-guilty verdict.
They could have stood up for what they believed the evidence to have said; they could have drawn a line in the sand and said “no, he’s guilty” and demanded that the other jurors convince them, or tried to convince the other jurors; or, in a worst case, they could have hung the jury.
They didn’t. They went along to get along.
So much for doing their civic duty.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/9/2005 @ 5:51 pmIt is sad that not only did she not have the moral courage to stand her ground, but she attempts to absolve herself of the fact. It would have been better if she said, “I’m sorry, I just couldn’t put up with it anymore, after all, I’m 79 and not used to this kind of pressure.” – But that would not make a good quote on a book cover.
Can the family of the victim bring a civil “Wrongful Acquittal” action and tap into the profit of the book…
In a more serious tone, could the ABA and others make some public service announcements about the responsibilities of being on a jury using this as a well known starting point?? (Having been on a jury myself, there is indeed a need to raise awareness to the importance of wise jury duty.)
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/9/2005 @ 6:37 pmI’m very curious about the legal ramifications of this. Seems to me that either
1) Jury intimidation took place (very doubtful, but that’s what is being alleged), and should be investigated – which would include the testimony of the “victims” under penalty of ~perjury~.
2) Verdict included votes from jurors who seem to have no moral compass and a questionable grasp on reality, and should be reviewed for validity (not sure if the discovery of a retarded person on a jury necessarily invalidates their verdict, but worth looking into).
3) Former jurors are broadcasting contents of sealed jury meetings on a worldwide scale – I had thought jurors were under some duty not to disclose the minutes of these meetings.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/10/2005 @ 1:06 pm“It would have been better if she said, “I’m sorry, I just couldn’t put up with it anymore, after all, I’m 79 and not used to this kind of pressure.” – But that would not make a good quote on a book cover.”
She should have said that at the time they were selecting her to be on the jury.
It would be nice if this at least formed the basis for a (federal) maximum age limit on jury pools.
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/10/2005 @ 1:10 pmScott,
Your comments are uninformed.
There is no duty to keep jury deliberations secret. And there is no reason to assume that the jurors had “no moral compass and a questionable grasp on reality.” Perhaps they simply didn’t find the evidence compelling enough for conviction.
Patterico (756436) — 8/13/2005 @ 9:06 amThis is the old hag who, in the post-verdict interview, gave the impression that SHE was the one who ruled the roost. She tried for glory in that role; and when it didn’t come, now is trying for attention in the role of bullied juror who wanted to do the right thing but was unable to do so because of the mob mentality of the others. She also has been selling T-shirts. Unbelievable.
bureaucrat (825e78) — 8/25/2005 @ 12:30 amThis quote: Cook: “I’m speaking out now because I believe it’s never too late to tell the truth.”
Is one of the un intentionally funny things I have ever read. Where did they find these people?
betting (f852e2) — 1/6/2006 @ 5:24 am