And just because a jury deadlocks does not mean the defendants are innocent. All it takes is one person to deadlock a criminal jury.

Here it was the opposite. The jury found acquitted on almost all of the counts before three jurors objected.

My friend’s terror case also had a majority voting for acquittal before the deadlock.

I suspect it’s very difficult for people in terror cases to get fair trials.

Also, since Jury Selection is part of the legal process, both the prosecution and the defendants tend to choose the Jury Members whom they perceive favourable to their stand, there is no harm is looking at the race.

Close. Actually it is the reverse. The prosecution and the defense go through a process not really of selecting, but of eliminating potential jurors they feel will be prejudicial to one side or the other.

Each side gets a set number of “preemptory challenges” which means they can dismiss the jury candidate as unfit with no reason or explanation. Those are like wild cards, so in clear cases, they will challenge “for cause”, and dave their preemptory challenges if they can.

A for cause challenge must be backed up with a thorough explanation as to why the person is unfit, i.e., why there is little chance that this particular person will be impartial. And it has to convince the judge it is a legitimate call.

And just because a jury deadlocks does not mean the defendants are innocent. All it takes is one person to deadlock a criminal jury.

What happened today is rare indeed. The jury announces that they have a verdict, and then no less than 3 of them say they were not in agreement in open court. I have heard of this happening before 3rd or 4th hand, but this is the first time I have seen it in a particular case. Sometihng very strange was happening in the jury room.

And yes, 197 counts against multiple defendants is more than slightly confusing. The legal issue is that if you do not bring all the counts in at one trial, the government can be deemed to waive some or all of those not charged. What they can do is try each defendant individually to cut down on the confusion, but since the trials are public, the lawyers for the remaining defendants get to essentially copy the prosecutors playbook.

At this point I think no one criticize the jury for anything, particularly in light of 3 of them swearing in open court they the foreman misrepresented their decisions regarding the verdict. No one knows what went on.

The case will be retried.

On October 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm, lgm said:

Ironically, the acquittal may make us safer. If Muslims around think America is truly a land of justice, fewer of them will want to attack us.

Perhaps you were on that jury… What alternate universe are you living in? This is Islam we are talking about. They hate us in part because we are a land of justice. Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Looking for Mr./Mrs. Perfect
J. D. Pendry…

Making the situation more complicated is the fact that much of Hamas is in fact a charity. They run schools and hospitals supported by donations from abroad. This might make it harder for the prosecutors to prove that the donations were intended to support terrorism. They might have been intended to support education.

Ironically, the acquittal may make us safer. If Muslims around think America is truly a land of justice, fewer of them will want to attack us.

Debbie Schlussel predicted this, that the Justice Department would not prove competant or provide proper evidence in dealing with investigations of terror funding. Now, it’s been told that a mistrial’s been declared in the case against the Holy Land …

Nice try Rusty, what makes you think I am white. I am Indian, you know…. the India in the other side of the world in Asia… that Indian.

I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about my friend who voted to acquit someone in a federal terrorism trial.

Gee Rusty, Osama Bin Laden would be presumed innocent given your ridiculous criteria for culpability.

Ridiculous criteria? You mean the burden of proof? You really have a problem with burden of proof? If we’re going to take the trouble to lock someone in prison and throw away the key, surely the government should prove that we’re doing that to the right people. It’s the government’s responsibility to make a good case. They obviously failed here.

Just because a jury didn’t buy the government’s charges doesn’t make them dumb, Muslim, or out to get America. As I said before, my white Christian politically independent law student friend voted to acquit a “terrorist.”

Because the government had no case. Which is the problem. If the HLF is really so bad, don’t be pissed at the jurors. Be pissed at the prosecutors.

And are you really advocating throwing people in jail with no trial? Because that’s a pretty frightening precedent to set.

But even under Bush and Ashcroft, they went after the HLF only after FBI Special Agent Robert Wright–who’d been begging for this prosecution for years–went on ABC News and publicly expressed his disgust. Finally, after that, John Ashcroft decided to indict HLF and a few of its minions. But Agent Wright was persecuted, demoted, and nearly fired as a result.

“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” —Voltaire

scooter56 said:

Our citizens do!

If citizens collaborate with the enemy they are traitors, and deserve to be treated as traitors.