Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The good news is, you spent five months listening to accounting details...
Two jurors kicked off the George Ryan jury for failing to disclose criminal convictions. How to proceed is still under discussion. The defense has objected to restarting deliberations with alternate jurors. The parties could agree to go forward with just 10 jurors, as well. (I'd suspect while the state would be OK with it - at least one, if not both defendants would object. The more jurors have to be convinced of guilt to convict - the better for the defense.)
One quote surprised me - when the judge spoke to reporters (the lawyers for each side are covered by a gag order):
If you don't think a prior conviction is a bar to being a fair juror - leave them on the panel. But it's still a good idea to know.
One quote surprised me - when the judge spoke to reporters (the lawyers for each side are covered by a gag order):
Pallmeyer said it was not regular practice in Chicago's federal courthouse for prosecutors to check the criminal records of potential jurors.Maybe the volume they deal with makes it hard to do, but the bottom line is - if you don't check a juror's criminal history, you aren't going to know a juror's criminal history. Virtually no amount of voir dire, no matter how skillful, is going to bring out a disclosure of a conviction if the juror is too embarrassed to admit to a prior record, or just plain doesn't want to tell you.
If you don't think a prior conviction is a bar to being a fair juror - leave them on the panel. But it's still a good idea to know.
