Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KenTheAlbino t1_isbm1kq wrote

Reply to comment by Jealous-Working-9454 in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b

Nope. It is over. Jeopardy has attached. There is zero possibility of Mr. Cruz getting the death penalty regardless of what this juror has to say.

19

Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbnpqk wrote

If that is the case then I hope she plays it for all it is worth. I picture angry people with a lust for vengeance just berating the shit out of her for having conviction. Maybe she can help point out that we have substituted a lust for vengeance and desire to cast blame on police for responsibilty and reason in our approach to our gun problem.

5

Jaaawsh t1_iscac2j wrote

Are you a lawyer? I would think the judge would still be able to rule a mistrial because it’s technically not over yet. He has not actually been given his sentence and wont be until November.

−4

KenTheAlbino t1_iscfe2q wrote

I am a lawyer. I practice criminal defense in Florida. The jury rendered a finding recommending life. The judge accepted the recommendation. Jeopardy has attached and there is no going back. Even if all three (it is being reported as three) life votes came out and said they were bullied into it (which I highly doubt was the case)- it would still be over when it comes to the death penalty.

But knowing what I know based upon experience- I can nearly guarantee that the person being bullied was a life vote. There were 9 death votes. And they knew they had to be unanimous in order to get death.

Mistrials are a tricky thing when it comes to double jeopardy (at least in Florida- I can only speak for where I am barred). The only real ways for the court to grant a mistrial without jeopardy attaching are 1) at the request of the defense, 2) a hung jury, or 3) extraordinary circumstances which would prevent the administration of justice.

In the case of Mr. Cruz, 1) the defense is not requesting it, 2) the jury did not hang- 1 life vote equals a life verdict in a penalty phase, and 3) even if they found one life juror bullied a death vote into life- it still would not result in manifest injustice as all you need is one life vote for a life verdict.

This is a nuanced issue and I hope I am explaining it in a way which can be understood. I am purposefully avoiding jargon and making it overly complicated.

30

Atkena2578 t1_iscgxmu wrote

Finally someone who spoke my mind. If you go on twitter, everyone thinks to seem that the "one holdout" (there were 3 who voted life) was the one who intimidated the other 2 to change their vote hence why she went ahead and wrote a note to judge to get ahead of complaints... and that makes no sense whatsoever. Usually the bullies are on the majority vote not the other way around. One juror gave CNN an interview (no the one who wrote the note) and says that she felt disrespected by others with her vote choice and that they just stood their ground and wanted to get out of there.

6

KenTheAlbino t1_iscmgi9 wrote

One life vote has no need to bully others. One life vote is a life verdict. It makes absolutely no sense for it to be the life vote bullying the death votes.

11

Atkena2578 t1_iscmoke wrote

I know, and to understand that you need common sense which twitter doesn't have

7

Jealous-Working-9454 t1_iscavp4 wrote

No, i am not a lawyer but i also don't play one on tv. I don't know if the guy is right about jeopardy attached already but that is a thing so I will assume he isn't full of it. I do know the whole reason we are even talking about this is the American Gun Owner killed those kids.

−4

Atkena2578 t1_ischf4z wrote

It is looking more and more like the jurors who are complaining so far are those who voted for life (one who tried to talk to judge, one who wrote a note and a third who was interviewedby cnn). They stood their ground tho so the verdict will stand and wasn't poisoned because of the intimidation

8