"The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a death row inmate Tuesday because an alternate juror at his murder trial told co-workers he was going to "get me a good rope so when we hang him it won't break."
In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the remarks, by a white juror trying a black defendant, evoked the image of lynch law and suggested the juror was racially biased and had prejudged the outcome.
Though the juror said he made none of the remarks to other panelists and did not deliberate on the verdict, other jurors might have been tainted, the court found.
Source
The guy who made the remark had nothing to do with the verdict nor did he make the remark to any of those who DID decide the verdict -- but the verdict was still "tainted".
What if all "not guilty" verdicts that come from juries that include a Leftist were challenged? Leftists after all believe that everything is due to "poverty" and that no-one is responsible for their own actions. That sounds like bias to me. Would such a verdict be "tainted"? And what if one juror had a friend who believed all that Leftist stuff? Surely that would "taint" the verdict too?
A lot of scope for overturning jury verdicts these days, it would seem. Maybe it might be possible to get O.J. Simpson yet!
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment