Question on jury duty decisiongreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Jury Duty:Several weeks ago I received an invitation to attend and participate in a trial impaneling , thats probably not the correct term for jury duty. Yesterday myself and a couple of thousand other citizens met and were assigned their various trial dates and times. Due to the fact that my schedule is usually very flexible I chose what is called the Express and was immediateately assigned to a murder trial. About a 100 of us citizens were directed to a courtroom and began the jury questioning period. We were asked if anyone had ever been involved with spousal and/or child abuse or any other violent crime.
Case background:
The accused allegedly beat and caused severe injuries to his 2 yr.old step-son in Jan of 1990. First trial the defendant was acquitted. Second trial the defendant was found guilty ,went to prison and later the verdict was overturned by an appeals court. The defendant is now serving a one year sentence (sentenced earlier this year) for assaulting his wife. The indictment for this third trial was : Prevention of the mother, his wife from obtaining medical assistance for the injured child. The defense attorney presented the narrow guidelines of this indictment and the panel was instructed that even if the jurors felt that if the evidence were to show that he had inflicted the injuries that opinion , feeling or conclusion could not enter into the deliberation as it pertained to the indictment. This cause and counter cause and the accused s intentions were to be the deciding factors for a guilty verdict. If the defendant prevented another party from obtaining medical assistance knowing that the probable outcome would be the death of the injured, then the defendant would be guilty of the crime. The possibility or assumption that the defendant caused the injuries could not be a factor in the decision.
The defense asked everyone in the panel if we could separate these and follow the letter of the law. That in my opinion was the primary question as presented by the defense and confirmed by the presiding judge.
Many of us could not and were ultimately excused from the panel.
With the information provided (if it makes sense) could the reader separate these issues and render a decision based on the indictment ?
I will definitely follow this trial as it unfolds and a lot closer than the previous two , although our local paper and TV leave a lot to be desired.
-- george (jones@choices.com), May 23, 2000
Yes, I could easily separate these issues and render a decision. I was on a murder trial four years ago. It was one of the THE most difficult things I have ever been through, emotionally. It was five weeks total. In short, the case involved a 4 year old, 35# down's syndrome child and a father who was "playing" with him. The father claimed he only swung the child by his ankles up in the air (because the child liked it) and the child later died of a massive hematoma to the brain. The father claimed maybe the child fell off the sofa when he wasn't looking, and that's how he became injured. The testimony and pictures were difficult, but the juror deliberation was worse. The judge gives you clear, specific instructions and will answer questions sent to them (in this state). Either the path is clear or it isn't. The jury's job is to decide. It isn't always easy, but it is necessary. The jury system in this state is fair, based on my experiences.
-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), May 24, 2000.
George,I'm confused. If this defendant was aquitted of the original charge, how is he being retried? Is this some different charge than what he was originally tried for?
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.
As an aside, and not to take away from the seriousness of these cases, awhile back someone here linked to an article about jury nullification, whereby the jury can nullify any bad laws. I think this is probably the most important piece of info we could have to fight corruption.....If someone could link, thanks.I know you have a tough job ahead of you. I missed jury duty last month by being next to the last one called. The charge was poosession with intent to distribute cocaine; the boy couldn't have been more than 18, and facing years behind bars.
Personally, I would have voted for aquittal, simply because the law in this case is inappropriate.
We've had a presidential candidate (sortof) Libby Dole spout off about getting tough on the "drug war", when her husband has been on tv advertising a recreational sex drug.
I only hope that everyone remembers about jury nullification; this country would be much much better off, if this kind of corruption would end.
(Rant off)
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), May 24, 2000.
Jim:"The indictment for this third trial was : Prevention of the mother, his wife from obtaining medical assistance for the injured child."
I admit it IS confusing based on what George has provided. George said this is a murder trial, so I would have to
that, although the step-dad had been tried for "allegedly beatING and causING severe injuries to his 2 yr.old step-son in Jan of 1990", the child has sometime during the past 10 years died from these injuries??? It sounds like the mother is saying that had she not been prevented from seeking medical aid the child wouldn't have died??? The timing and circumstances of the events need to be stated more clearly, George. For instance, was the assault on the mother at the same time as the assault on the child? Was she physically unable to seek medical aid for the child because she herself was laying on the floor in a heap? Was the medical aid required immediately upon assault, or did the child develop complications later that were ignored?
To be honest, unless the mother was prevented from obtaining medical aid because she was unconscious, tied up, etc., I have a hard time absolving HER on this one.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 24, 2000.
Correction: I would have to ASSUME that......
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 24, 2000.
A short piece on Jury Veto Power from the Fully Informed Jury Association.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 24, 2000.
Just a hint.Firstly, a jury of your peers was designed by the Founders as a sort of fourth branch of govt. In other words, a jury trial was meant to correct misguided decisions, or badly thought out laws, from the three (other) branches of govt. A case in point is the young man facing life in prison for a non violent drug crime, hardly fair when one considers what rapists get in comparison.
Oh yeah, the hint.
Do NOT speak of jury nullification to a judge, lawyer, or other potential jurors as you will NOT be chosen to sit on the panel of jurors. Keep it to yourself.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.
Good tip, Unc.
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), May 24, 2000.
Very sorry that the info was not clear.. Aunt Bee it appears that the trial you were involved with was a current crime and you could perhaps weigh the facts and testimony in the present tense (so to speak), not a criminal case that had been in the news for several years.The child was beaten and died in Jan of 90 and the first trial took place in early fall. I dont know the actual language of the first or second indictments.
This third indictment as described could be weighed by itself if there had not been two previous trials and outcomes, and that is why I feel that the defendant (although he probably does not deserve it) should have his trial held in a different location. That is also why I felt that I could not seperate the issues, feeling that the defendant had killed his step-son by the beating and possibly preventing the medical assistance (only an assumption on my part,after all, that evidence or lack of is what is beimg presented).
According to several family members and co-workers, who were aware of the nature of the trial,the defendant and the childs mother both should be punished in the most severe manner possible, maybe they remembered more of the details from the previous trials
I hope this additional information helps in your thoughts.
-- george (jones@choices.com), May 24, 2000.
George-The trial/case of which I wrote had been televised several years before when the incident first occurred, but several year later, when it came to trial the details were but a vague memory-too many childred in the news dead from "loving parents/caregivers'. I did not discuss this case with co-workers/family when I was one the jury as it would have been inappropriate behavior within the framework of the judicial system (as instructed by the judge and only common sense). In this state the judge admonishes you not to discuss. read/watch news til the trial is over (which I honored). Perhaps you are speaking from a non-juror perspective...
As I stated before, I could decide, objectively. Perhaps it is not the same in your circumstances.
-- Au (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), May 24, 2000.
metro & state Thursday, May 25
Medics: Zuliani's behavior made them suspicious
By Tracie Powell American-Statesman Staff Thursday, May 25, 2000
Emergency crews called to treat a young drowning victim said they became immediately suspicious upon entering Gerald Zuliani's South Austin apartment.
Christopher Wohlers, the 20-month-old who would die early the next morning with a head injury, had dry hair, three emergency workers said Wednesday as testimony began in Zuliani's third trial in Christopher's 1990 death.
Zuliani is charged with murder. Prosecutors say he caused the boy's death by preventing his wife, Robbie Boutwell, from getting help for her son in a timely fashion.
On Wednesday, jurors heard from medics, a police detective who searched Zuliani's apartment and a dispatcher who took Boutwell's 911 call. Jurors also heard a tape of that telephone call.
James Shamard, an Austin paramedic in 1990, said emergency crews rushed into Zuliani's apartment to find his stepson lying amid clutter in a dimly lit hallway. When Shamard requested room for his equipment, Zuliani cursed and then picked up and threw an ottoman into another room, said Shamard, now a senior commander for Austin's Emergency Medical Services.
Shamard said he barely remembered seeing or hearing Boutwell, but he described Zuliani as frantic and agitated.
"Being frantic in that kind of situation is normal," Shamard told defense lawyer Ray Bass. "It's the manner in which he did it that was surprising."
Bass sought to characterize Zuliani's behavior with the ottoman as concern for Christopher and aggravation that medics were taking too long to help the boy.
But in opening statements Wednesday, prosecutor Dayna Blazey said the evidence would show that Zuliani had a bad temper, abused his wife and stepson Christopher, and had an intense animosity toward the boy. Zuliani was a violent, controlling man who referred to his stepchildren -- Christopher and 4-year-old Jennifer -- as "another man's mistakes," Blazey said.
On the night Christopher was fatally injured, Zuliani refused to allow his wife of 23 days call for help because he "wasn't going down for murder," Blazey said.
Bass, however, sought to shift the focus and the blame onto Boutwell. "When police questioned her about the (drowning) story, she began to curse and scream," Bass told jurors. "It was not until after police suggested that somebody must have pushed that child into a wall that Boutwell's story changed (to blame Zuliani)."
Bass also noted that Christopher had been abused long before Zuliani entered the child's life. Boutwell's former boyfriend, Wayne Michael Hoffman, pleaded guilty to placing Christopher into a bathtub of scalding water and received a 10-year sentence.
Zuliani's first trial for injury to a child ended in a mistrial. He was convicted of reckless injury to a child in his second trial, but the verdict was thrown out on appeal.
-- george (jones@choices.com), May 25, 2000.
OT here,But www.rotten.com has pics of OJ simpson from some british news, i found it today those pics were awful this site is exactly as the name states: Rotten.comDidnt even know sites like this were around, so naive am I.
-- Phil (Phil@dog.ohno), May 26, 2000.
George-The similarities in both cases is uncanny. Injury, denial, 3rd party verification...it's scary...almost like it's a pattern. In my case the individual was convicted and sentenced to 37 years. The decision was upheld on appeal. I could still decide in your situation. The adult has the ability and responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the child. The decision was perfectly clear in my situation. I believe that unless you were on the jury and privy to the details you could make no other decision.
-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), May 26, 2000.
Zuliani was convicted of criminal negligent homicide today..his lawyer says of probable 2 yr sentence that with previous time served ,he will probably be in jail about 2 months...some of the testimony as reported in paper was very scary..Zuliani is one sick individual...
-- george (jones@choices.com), June 08, 2000.
Thanks for the update George. The real crime is the legislation that allows so little punishment for so great a crime. Another great waste of taxpayer dollars on a poor excuse for a human being.
-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), June 08, 2000.
Two errors on yesterdays post: 1) convicted of involuntary manslaughter, 2) sentenced to 10 yrs not 2..will not serve long due to previous 4 yrs served on 2nd trial/conviction/sentence but overturned on review..Zuliani out on bond during appeal process...Very disturbing events during last 10 days...2 month old boy slammed onto sidewalk by father(after being held by ankles out of moving car window) in hospital in intensive care with head injuries..another 2 year old beaten by father died at hospital..this is too bizarre..how could any man/parent do this...
-- george (jones@choices.com), June 09, 2000.
When people are guided by information only provided by the prosecutors and news media there will be unjust done to all. For 11+ years Christophers mother has lied over and over blaming zuliani, each time changing her accusations and yet nobody notices. Boutwell took a plea bargain to testify against zuliani and avoid prosecution. Her plea bargain for Jan.2,1990 was for causing the fatal injuries,"RECKLESSLY CAUSING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO A CHILD,3RD DEGREE FELONY) not ommission like the prosecutors and media stated (see Cause#102694 signed by her on Oct.17,1990); she also plead to another charge(see Cause#105542 signed by her,supposedely "OMMISSION" but review the court documents they are quite confusing as to what she plead in this charge). If the transcripts from zuliani's last trial{3rd trial - Double Jeopardy????... for a rose by any other name is still a rose}were released, the public would be surprised at boutwells courtroom antics/ testimony. When asked if she is a liar about this case she replied "SO WHAT!" She accused zuliani of actions in Dec1989 that were proved at trial to be false,SEE the LOVE LETTER evidence and compare to previous statements about dated events already testified to at trial #1 and #2(this one was a biggy she was caught in telling, by the way thats called perjury or aggravated perjury, why hasn't she been charged?). Bruises found on Christopher, said by experts to be 10+ hours or older maybe 24 hours from the time medical attention was provided to him... So if Christopher went to the hospital at approximately 11:30p.m. subtract 10 to 24 hours and the injuries sustained occured between 1:30pm back to 11:30p.m. of Jan.1,1990 approximately. Now boutwell had child all day,zuliani at work from 7:30a.m. to 4:30p.m.on Jan.2,1990,and assuming they slept the night before the day of Jan.2, then boutwell has some serious explaing to do since the LIES don't fit NO more, she didn't get to her residence till about 6+p.m. of Jan.2[FACT:boutwell had her children by herself all day ;see testimony of MISSY HICKS, boutwell went to bank twice that day Christopher was fine that morning at Farm&Home Savings but later that afternoon about 2:30p.m.Jan2,1990 HICKS witnessed Christopher was seriously hurt] If this case returns to court expect boutwells testimony to change to new time/injury accusations toward zuliani. SINCE ZULIANI WAS CHARGED WITH PREVENTING MEDICAL ATTENTION. THEN LET'S ADDRESS THAT, THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF THAT CAME FROM BOUTWELL'S STORY TELLING, BUT NOTE FOR A FACT - SHE NEVER TESTIFIED THAT ZULIANI THREATENED HER WITH ANY PHYSICAL INJURY IF SHE ATTEMPTED TO CALL FOR HELP OR GET HELP. HER TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT TRAGIC NIGHT OF JANUARY 2, 1990, SHOWED MERELY THAT FOR TIMES SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE REQUESTED PERMISSION TO CALL FOR AN AMBULANCE AND THREE TIMES zuliani SUPPOSEDLY SAID NO. THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY OR SUGGESTION BY BOUTWELL THAT zuliani EXHIBITED, HAD, OR REFERRED TO A WEAPON AT ANY TIME DURING THESE EXCHANGES. Next time we look into fair trial, the state withheld evidence favorable to the defendant in this case, and fabricated 2 POLICE REPORTS(they didn't exist at his other trials, but 10 years later POOF! they do?????) I know ZULIANI did not commit the cimes he has endured and languished to clear up, I will check to see a reponse to this...............ASK ME QUESTIONS??????on this page........I can not give my address at this time, please do not discriminate against my submission, I will address at a later date if properly and politely referred. I appologize if the fake address causes 'technical problems' but at this juncture to release identity could cause havoc...
-- Access Tofacts (inonit@inn.com), April 01, 2001.
Access leaves out a few major details and claims to have an insider track. Zuliani requested that he be sentenced by the Judge instead of the jury at his third trial. He knew that if the jury sentenced him that victim impact statements would be allowed to be made prior to sentencing. Among those were former victims of Zuliani. Former girlfriend prior to Boutwell was tell how he beat her repeatedly in the same manner he beat his first wife, his stepson and his second wife Boutwell. Officers of Travis county from Del Valle who worked where Zuliani served his "prison time" were ready as well to make impact statements. The officers would reveal not only that he did not actually physically serve time in a prison unit although he was considered a prisoner of the state of Texas paperwork wise(Travis County recieves State monies for housing State inmates waiting to go to prison or State inmates waiting to go to prison pending appeal--- it is a overcrowding issue) but also that during his stay he initiated fights with other inmates whom he viewed weaker than himself repeatedly no matter where they moved him. They would also reveal that he said upon one of his many releases from jail that he would kill Boutwell for having testified against him. Another Officer of the court was going to testify that he admitted to his grandmother on the phone that he didnt mean to kill his stepson just beat him. His written confession to the police was not allowed in his first trial because as a police officer would admit to later he made it after another officer put him against a wall. The wall incident happened when the officer asked Zuliani to tell him what happened. Zuliani reportedly laughed and told the officer " F** You. You arent pinning nothing on me." This was before he was informed that his stepson had died as a result of his injuries. The confession because of this incident was not allowed in court. The 1st trial continued. After several days the jury went to take a lunch break before deliberating on Zuliani's fate the evidence box was checked and the confession was not in the evidence boxes. Which was how it should have been. Upon returning from lunch the jury checked the evidence boxes again and one had been tampered with--the confession had been put into it, thus forcing a mistrial. In his 2nd trial since the first one mistried, the defense team even in closing arguements did not deny that thier client Zuliani was guilty but focused more on that he could be rehabilitated and deserved lesser sentencing. The jury was confused by the legal jargon of options, the meaning of degrees of felonies, open , to convict him on and the amount of time connected with each felony. Defense attorneys for Zuliani mentioning that Boutwell had being charged originally of Recklessness with a maximum punishment of 99 years led the jury to believe that if they charged Zuliani with a third degree crime it would carry the same sentence as a first degree felony of 99 years. When they anounced the punishment time that they wanted to give him--several decades the judge informed them of thier mistake. They were then told the maximums that were allowed by law by what they had decided to sentence him with. The maximum being 10 years and a 10,000 dollar fine. They then went back and gave him the max. They then left the court room and explained to the media thier mistake and expressed much regret. Thus the Jury's Bill of Rights would later be formed by those same people for all juries later. After the 1st mistrial Zuliani was allowed to be released from County jail pending the new trial. He remained out on bond for over a year. He was returned to jail after the new trial. Then he was released again after another year had passed on bond pending appeal. Years pass as appeal after appeal was filed. He won an appeal on points of legal technicallity that happened during the retrial (#2. He was not exonerated. During this time he broke up with his common law 3rd wife, a friend of his mother's, and met up with his girlfriend who would file assault charges on him. He was convicted on the charges and recieved one year and a fine. He was sent to jail and released within 2 hours of being in City jail pending appeal on the new charge of beating his then current girlfriend. Reason behind this was that Zuliani was facing a possible retrial in regards to Zuliani beating his stepson. Zuliani's defense team also expunged his records that would show he had gone repeatedly to court with a girlfriend he had prior to Boutwell for simple assault charges since those resulted in being thrown out since the girlfriend did not show up to court. Zuliani did not want to look bad going to trial and needed to be out and all traces of his violent pattern hidden. After his third trial thinking that the Judge would be more lenient than a jury Zuliani requested to be sentenced by the Judge having the jury dismissed. The Judge gave him the maximum allowed by law. Zuliani was allowed to be out on bond before surrendering to the court. However while out a short while the same Judge in preparing for a hearing in regards to a motion filed by Zuliani's Defense team realized that there was a law stating that no one convicted of a violent felony crime was no longer allowed to be out on bond pending any appeal. Zuliani was removed from the court room by Law officers. Immediately following he was up for parole-- time served. The parole board paroled him with a variety of stipulations especially after hearing victim statements. In regards to Boutwell saying "so what" about being called a liar--the Defense team asked her if she had held any ill feelings towards her prosecutors especially Limburg. When Boutwell stated repeatedly she did not,Defense then asked if she really felt that way even though back in 1990 days after her child's death Limburgh called her a liar in the newspaper. Boutwell responded "so what" clearly showing that she held no animosity towards the prosecutor and disregarded what was said by Limburgh to the media. Limburgh was key in forming the now Child Advocacy Center as a result of Christopher Wohlers death. As far as the mistakes made by Police officers many later would admit to having regret in how they handled the case. But those same individuals are more aware and informed about domestic violence. They now separate couples when initially gathering facts and the officers are now able to file charges without needing the battered wife or the battered child to go later and press charges. As for Zuliani-- Zuliani's hands remain bloody. He is as George put it one sick individual.
-- Fair Ness (Posted@justus4all.com), November 13, 2001.
I am nothing, in your circumstance. I walk in sandals, I have no stature, You must make the thing right, for whatever the cost. I stumbled across your path. You must make, the whole thing, right.
-- There is a Higher Place. (Why allow evil@all?.com), November 15, 2001.