Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 43037
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/04/05 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/5     

2006/5/12-16 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:43037 Activity:nil
5/12    http://csua.org/u/fu5 (Wash Post)
        Votes for death for Moussaoui were 11-1, 10-2, 10-2 on three death-
        penalty eligible charges.
        On the 11-1 vote, jury foreman says the reason for the life in prison
        vote was never put forth by the dissenter for discussion by the group
        despite repeated attempts to draw out a reason.
        \_ I think he's a delusional whack job who did not
           personally bomb the WTC.  he probably wanted to really badly.
           is that reason enough to improsin him for life ?
           \_ Yes.  Isolating dangeous people from society is one of the
              big responsibilites of the government.  Just because the
              reason you're crazy is that you're delusional doesn't make
              you any less dangeous.
              reason you're dangerous is that you're delusional doesn't
              make you any less dangerous.
        \_ So? I'm actually glad to hear you don't have to provide reasons
           for a decision like this.
           \_ In a jury room they are supposed to.  That's what they're there
              for.  Otherwise we might as well roll dice or draw cards.
              \_ I thought you had to supply reasons _for_ voting for the
                 death penalty, not against?  Or do we have mandatory death
                 penalty for big enough offenses now?  I thought it was always
                 a choice between life imprisonment and the whack for murder 1,
                 sufficiently bad treason, terrorism and a very few others,
                 with the jury given the ability to choose between the two
                 if the prosecution asks for the death penalty?  -John
                 \_ I'll clarify: I believe the jury should be discussing all
                    their options and everything presented in the case before
                    them before reaching a decision.  It sounds like one juror
                    was unwilling to perform their full duty while the other
                    10-11 tried very hard to do so.  If the juror simply
                    didn't believe in the DP then they shouldn't have been
                    allowed on a potential DP trial, but since they didn't
                    speak up we will never know why they voted the way they
                    \_ Ah okay, "should".  My question was more, is there a
                       legal requirement for them to justify their vote
                       against the DP lest the judge declare a mistrial or
                       something?  -John
                       \_ I don't believe there's a strict legal requirement.
                          As jurors they have a lot of latitude in what and
                          how they deliberate.  See "jury nullification".  Even
                          so, I still feel they *should* have even if they
                          probably weren't strictly legally required to.
                          \- the term you are looking for is "death qualified"
                             it is constitiional to require jury members be
                             open to capital pushisment in captial cases
                             but that is not a requirement. i dont know if
                             the prosecution asks on a case by case basis
                             during vore dire "we want a death certified
                             jury" or if it is mandated in certain
                             jurisdictions automatically under certain
                             circumstances ... like can you ask for a death
                             certified jury if you are still open to
                             negotiating if you will go for life or death
                             penalty? this is relevant because there have been
                             some studies whether death qualfied juries are
                             more pro-prosecution ... in which case they would
                             want a DQ jury even in a non-capital case.
                             while jury nullification means the jurors
                             never have to give an explanation, they actually
                             can be quite limited in how they negotiate ...
                             like they cant find for a lesser charge unless
                             it is offered to them, and in some cases judges
                             have done things like turned down requests for
                             a dictionary etc. i dont remember the USSC
                             cases on this but no doubt you can find them on
                             the WEEB once you have the right term.
                    did, if there was any reason at all, good, bad, or
                    otherwise.  In some sense I feel justice has been robbed.
                    I'd much prefer if they had participated fully in
                    deliberations and it went 12-0 against the DP than 11-1 or
                    10-2 for, but not knowing.  My cynical side says to look
                    for the book hype from juror #12 in the next few weeks.
                    \_ I dunno, my analysis is that the lone standout may
                       have been afraid of getting outed as the one voting
                       against death, and subsequently getting screwed by dumb
                       Americans in terms of privacy, success, and happiness
                       for the rest of his or her natural life.
                       How many 9/11's are there?
                       \_ Fame is fame.  If I was the hold out I'd be making
                          mega bucks with in 3 months.  No one famous was ever
                          held back by anything but their own stupidity.  Look
                          at Hollywood.  There are oodles of rich and famous
                          people, many of whom have no talent, education, or
                          anything else going for them, yet there they are.
                          \_ So to summarize:  You say maybe it's a book deal,
                             I say maybe the guy's afraid, you say if you were
                             the holdout you'd be making a book deal ...
        \_ You may wish to read about the case of the United States
           successful bioinformatics researcher by day /
           Islamic intellectual by night Ali al-Tamimi.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Al-Tamimi - danh
2025/04/05 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/5     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/6/3-7/23 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:54685 Activity:nil
6/3     Why are "real estate" and "real property" called so?  Does the part
        "real" mean something like "not fake"?
        \- without going into a long discourse into common law,
           it is to distinguish land/fixed property from intangible
           property [like a patent] and movable, personal property,
           like your car. Real property has historically had special
	...
2012/10/1-11/7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:54488 Activity:nil
10/1    Photos of the Supreme Court in session:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/8zuqc25 [slate]
	...
Cache (6111 bytes)
csua.org/u/fu5 -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101884_pf.html
REAL ESTATE One Juror Between Terrorist And Death Moussaoui Foreman Recalls Frustration By Timothy Dwyer Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 12, 2006; A01 Only one juror stood between the death penalty and Zacarias Moussaoui and that juror frustrated his colleagues because he never explained his vote, according to the foreman of the jury that sentenced the al-Qaeda operative to life in prison last week. The foreman, a Northern Virginia math teacher, said in an interview that the panel voted 11 to 1, 10 to 2 and 10 to 2 in favor of the death penalty on three terrorism charges for which Moussaoui was eligible for execution. A unanimous vote on any one of them would have resulted in a death sentence. The foreman said deliberations reached a critical point on the third day, when the process nearly broke down. Frustrations built because of the repeated 11 to 1 votes on one charge without any dissenting arguments during discussions. All the ballots were anonymous, and the other jurors were relying on the discussions to identify the holdout. It was as if a heavy cloud of doom had fallen over the deliberation room, and many of us realized that all our beliefs and our conclusions were being vetoed by one person. But I would have to say that most of the arguments we heard around the deliberation table were" in favor of the death penalty. The foreman, who said she voted for the death penalty because the government proved its case, was the second juror to be interviewed by The Washington Post since the trial ended last week. The first juror said he voted for life in prison because he thought that Moussaoui's role in the Sept. He said some other jurors shared his point of view, but he would not reveal the vote. Questioned again after the foreman's comments, the first juror said that he is "happy someone else came forward" and that the 12 jurors "differed in the way we interpreted the things we saw and heard." The foreman said deliberations broke off April 26 when one juror questioned why they should take another vote. the foreman remembers the juror saying, "We all know how it is going to come out." The next day a juror called in sick, and there were no deliberations. The foreman told the group that she wanted to send a note to US District Judge Leonie M Brinkema stating that the jury was "not holding deliberations in the true sense of deliberations because the con arguments were not being thrown out on the table so we could investigate them as a group." She said the jurors did not want any notes sent to the judge, so they decided that the whole group would raise anti-death penalty issues because that way the lone dissenter would not feel isolated or "ganged up on." Deliberations continued, but the foreman said the lone dissenter still did not raise any issues. Three days later, jurors delivered their decision to Brinkema. The foreman said at the end of the deliberations she felt better about the process but not the outcome. "I felt frustrated," she said, "because I felt that many of us had been cheated by the anonymity of the 'no' voter. We will never be able to hold their reason up to the light and the scrutiny of evidence, fact and law." Brinkema ordered that the identities of the jurors be withheld for security reasons. The foreman contacted The Post and the interview was conducted on the condition of anonymity by a reporter who recognized her from the trial. Moussaoui, 37, the only person convicted in the United States in connection with the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, pleaded guilty last year to taking part in a broad al-Qaeda conspiracy to crash planes into US buildings. Moussaoui, a French citizen, testified that he had planned to fly a fifth hijacked airplane into the White House on Sept. The foreman said Moussaoui's testimony, though dramatic, had little impact on deliberations in either phase of the sentencing trial. In the first phase, the jury found that he was eligible for the death penalty. In the second, the panel could not agree on a death sentence, so Moussaoui automatically was sentenced to life in prison. "Most of the jurors didn't give much weight to Moussaoui's testimony in the first part or the second part," she said. "Though I gathered from his second testimony that he really didn't want the death penalty. The jurors did not believe the defense team's argument that Moussaoui was suffering from mental illness, the foreman said, but they thought some of his actions, including volunteering to testify for the prosecution, were "bizarre." But bizarre behavior does not equal mental illness, she said. I think most of us found Moussaoui to be intelligent, smart, crafty and a great manipulator. Those were the comments that were frequently thrown around the table." She said jurors found that Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty after the trial's first phase because they decided that at least part of the Sept. She said the jury went through the evidence methodically, creating a timeline of events that might have taken place if the government had allowed FBI agent Harry Samit to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings. Each day, she said, the jurors would take photos by famed photographer Ansel Adams off the walls and hang posters they had created to keep track of the evidence. At the end of the day, they would carefully rehang the photos. She said the initial vote in the first phase was 10 to 2, but once jurors completed the timeline, a unanimous verdict came quickly. "And I think because of the emotional nature of 9/11 that we went out of our way to be driven by evidence, facts and inferences beyond reasonable doubt." She has gone back to work after taking a few days off and is still processing the experience. She still wonders why the one dissenter never raised specific objections to sentencing Moussaoui to death. "We don't know whether we covered all of the cons in the deliberations," she said. "Our sense was this was a done deal for that person and whoever that person is, they were consistent from the first day and their point of view didn't change."
Cache (223 bytes)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Al-Tamimi
If it does, Turley said, "the government would have to establish whether Dr. Al-Timimi was intercepted under this or any other undisclosed operation, and the court could have to look at the legality of the whole operation."