[Guest post by DRJ]

In the wake of the controversial “Taser This … F*Bush” editorial published last week in the Colorado State University Collegian (discussed here), the student editor, J. David McSwane, faced the CSU governing board that will decide whether to fire him for his approval of an editorial that used profanity.

(more…)

Before anyone knew where the jury was headed in the Spector trial, there were media reports that the foreman was an engineer who had taken copious notes. Mrs. P. said to me: “That’s not good. That’s just not good.”

Turns out she was right:

The foreman, a 32-year-old civil engineer who also spoke, declined to give his name or state how he voted. But [Juror Ricardo] Enriquez and several attorneys later said the man was one of the defense holdouts.

That Mrs. P. is pretty sharp.

(There are some office rumors relevant to all this, but I can’t repeat those.)

I’m listening to KFI right now, and John and Ken are playing an interview Ashleigh Banfield did with the foreman. (KFI is reporting his name, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to repeat it in this post, and I ask commenters to follow my example.)

Apparently he was not only one of the holdouts, but he was also the most adamant holdout:

Enriquez, in a later interview with The Times, said the foreman and a 37-year-old woman who works as an assistant for the L.A. County Superior Court had voted not guilty. Enriquez said the 37-year-old woman said she did not think the testimony of five women that Spector had threatened them with guns matched the circumstances of the Clarkson shooting. “She couldn’t put the gun” in Spector’s hand, Enriquez said in describing the juror’s thinking.

He said that Wednesday morning the woman offered to vote for a conviction “under protest” but that other jurors told her she should only vote her true belief.

The other jurors are right: each juror should vote his or her conscience, and should not vote just to go along with the rest. That said, this juror sounds far less adamant than the foreman. One wonders whether she might not have allowed herself to be convinced, if she had had no allies.

I think we have a very realistic shot next time around.

UPDATE: I don’t mean to slam all engineers in this post. As I explain below in the comments, my neighbor Jeff C. is an engineer — and I’d take him on a jury before I took any of the rest of you. He just exudes common sense.

Individuals mean more than stereotypes in jury selection — but when you don’t have a lot to go on, stereotypes about professions can be better than nothing. (E.g. it is unlikely that I would ever leave a journalist on a jury. But again, the right person could convince me otherwise. For example, the Dateline NBC guy on the Spector jury was apparently a very good juror, from what I’ve seen.)

[Guest post by DRJ]

There’s more Jena 6 news:

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

Hillary Clinton’s statement against torture is a big story from last night’s Democratic debate, especially since it conflicts with a statement by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and her earlier statement on the use of torture in exigent circumstances:

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

Via the Instapundit, Barcepundit debunks one story and breaks another:

“MUCH IS BEING MADE of the scoop by pro-Zapatero’s daily El País, in Madrid, of the transcript of the memo of a conversation between Bush and Spain’s former PM Aznar in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start.
***
If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war; that they were concerned of its human toll, and that Saddam wanted to flee with money… and WMD information. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this will stop saying now that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Won’t hold my breath, though.”

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

Patterico’s Deport the Criminals First series focuses on detaining illegal immigrants who have been arrested for serious crimes and deporting convicted criminal aliens after they have served their sentences. The existence of Sanctuary Cities frustrates this goal because law enforcement in those cities are prohibited from identifying illegal aliens or notifying ICE of their arrest and status.

Other cities have implemented programs aimed at identifying criminal aliens and turning them over to federal authorities for identification and, if appropriate, deportation.

(more…)

This is a very interesting story — especially if you know the background. I’m debating whether to write more about it — and currently leaning against it. But you should definitely read the story.

Christi and Matthew walking through the Lauterbrunnen valley:

(more…)