Ain’t looking too good fer Ted.

The prosecutor really went after him I hear.

Nice Post Christy!

Down the Toobz for Stevens!

Christy !

Is this Jury for real … Deliberations are kinda stressful – TPM

OK..we’ve got someone who thinks that when people bring you stuff and you allow them to leave things in your house…that you use, because you have not thanked them for it, it is NOT a gift and you don’t have to report it. And, you allow your spouse to use your professional staff in DC(or for that matter anyplace else) to perform what amounts to work that is usually performed by family members? In other words, what Mrs. Stevens really wanted was not a husband..but another wife!! This is one ethically challenged, delusional couple.

NO !

… someone had to say it … *g*

Is that right? I was going to ask the opposite, if the DOJ threw the case.

(((Petro!)))

I’ve always heard that the people on juries are the ones not smart enough to get out of jury duty. “g”

Spoiled Rotten is one way to describe them. Must thought he was “owed” just like McCain.

Catherine Stevens used her husband’s Senate staff to keep the family checkbook. She used the senator’s staff to pay her credit card bills from luxury stores like Saks Fifth Avenue.

Saks Fifth Avenue?

I’m sensing a pattern here.

I just want to offer, here and now, that if anyone has some really nice and expense “stuff” they need to store/leave somewhere, my house is open to you. Call me big hearted and public minded.

((((( Elliott )))))

Wanna place a wager for a coupla cheesesteaks ?

I heard the same thing … that the DOJ tried real hard to throw the case …

What? Discounts to R pols? A R Personal Shopper Dept?

you are rooting for the Devil Rays?!

Take my wife ! Please !

Here in WV, we had a Supreme Court justice get the boot off the court just a few years back for using his staffers as dry cleaning pick-up folks and babysitters. Voters didn’t think it was such a fab idea. Got the feeling reading the ADN article that Alaskans don’t enjoy paying salaries for staffers to be used as toadies and gophers, either.

Nah, I bet you that the Blue Jays will lose this time … *g*

… it sounded funny before I thought of it … *g*

ROFL!

*G*

1,803 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

I think that the verdict from a “jury of his peers” in Alaska will tell us all a lot about the condition of “the rule of law” in that state…further, if the people of that jury are able to hold Stevens accountable for his corruption even in the face of federal government attempts to poison the prosecution and set up an appelate overturn of a conviction, I believe we may witnes a complete change in the social and political mentality of that state that has to this point had more in common with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party than the the ideas of constitutional democracy articulated in the Consitution. That said,I don’t think that the good folks of Alaska have it in ‘em …Exxon Mobile has purchased the soul of the people in Alaska and I think the AIP is more reflective of the social and political mentality up there than the preamble to the Constitution.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE CURE FOR A SICK DEMOCRACY IS MORE DEMOCRACY!!!

I am. Direct action postponed until Sat morning coalition. Uhurus will do their thing over the shootings tonight as scheduled.

The trial by a jury of Ted’s peers is in DC, not Alaska. The alleged crime was committed in DC, but Ted tried and failed to get the trial moved back home anyway.

figures ;)

The trial is in DC, not Alaska.

Which raises a Q. Is ET around? What kind of coverage is this getting in AK, considering the trial isn’t there?

of course I meant about the team, not the protest

ADN has had decent coverage throughout. And there are several bloggers from AK who have been covering it, along with one blogger who covered it live from the courthouse with dispatches throughout the trial.

Here’s the front page of the Anchorage Daily News to give you an idea

It doesn’t sound like Stevens thinks he has peers

Thanks Christy, Elliot.

Citizen Bustednuckles:

Yeah, the “prosecutor really went after him” but the horses have been outta the barn since the feds poisoned their own prosecution by not disclosin’ the potentially exculpatory info prior ta trial…still, if this jury of Alaskans comes up with a “guilty” verdict then I will confess to my three granddaughters that there really is a Santa Claus (who doesn’t look like Gampa).

Catherine Stevens had the senator’s staff make runs to an ATM to fetch cash for her. The senator’s staff wrapped Christmas gifts for the Stevens, walked the family dog, fed the family cat, cut the family lawn, paid personal parking tickets and handled overdue personal video rental bills.

ATM’s are not trucks. they are a series of tubes that get filled.

But you need some trucks when you got to get a lot of money from lobbyists. Plus the dogs and cats, parking tickets, videos and Christmas presents take up room, so a truck sometimes is not big enough. This is all Cat Stevens fault. She is a Hard Headed Woman.

Yeah, after drivin’ down there an’ all. Well, we’ll see what happens with the Uhurus tonight and plan accordingly for Sat.

Do you not read the comments? See 23 & 25.

The judge let the jury go home half-day, ’cause of the stress?
Christy, is this typical? Or rare? Or?
If they were going to sequester to discuss, but needed to go home, does this mean there is stress between the jury members?

Two push polls at our house in two days. It’s official. WV is a battleground state.

Thanks for that, really enjoyed it.

Oh…Alaskans won’t be makin the decision, well maybe there is a chance ta get somethin akin ta justice up there…great, now if we ken reinstitute reconstruction and put the feds in charge of the Stae of Alaska, maybe we’ll be gettin somewhere!

Their heads may have been exploding from the judges instructions.

Did I read that the judge’s instructions were 81 pages? Sounds like jury abuse to me.

eCAHN — here’s the link on the AK blogger who has been doing dispatches from the courthouse. I linked him up in my last Stevens post, too — but his take on the closings and jury stuff is a hoot.

Well, that could be it. I only served on a jury once, and I was an alternate. But, I did get an eye full.

Completely OT, but even China is working on universal health-care….

‘Free-market economic reforms rolled out across the Chinese health system in 1978 have led to a collapse in healthcare provision for a fifth of the world’s population, researchers have concluded.

The Chinese government, recognising the disparities in access to healthcare between the urban rich and rural poor, is planning to overhaul the world’s largest health system. The plan, entitled “Healthy China 2020″, aims to restore universal access to primary healthcare by 2010.’

http://www.newscientist.com/ar…..arket.html

I’ve always wanted to be on a jury, just to see the inner workings first hand. But, alas, the only time I was called to jury duty it was a rape trial and I got excused for cause. And now that I’m an attorney, odds are that I won’t get selected because, truly, who wants someone second-guessing their lawyering in court?

The people sitting on the bench behind the defense look like singles night at the country club?
No. Pshaw.
Early this am, Raven said women dress like hookers to go to church.
I’m thinking, man if I was single, which I’m not, and do not want to be, I’m picking up some great places to go for a meet up. Ha.

Read quite a bit of it. You’re right, it’s a hoot. Blogger should consider becoming the next John Grisham.

You’ve got to love a guy who can do color commentary AND play by play.

I hung a jury in a second degree murder trial. I’ll never go on a jury again. I just throw my notices in the garbage.

Here, that would get the local circuit judge to send a deputy to your house to “escort you to court.” Which, frankly, never makes for a cheery juror who likely gets struck by counsel on one side or the other…but it does make the judge’s point. *g*

I understand that your unfortunate (poor word, sorry) experience was cause for you to be dismissed. Too bad. I believe you would be a great jurist.
Of course, you made an even better prosecutor, I bet.
The trial I sat on was pretty gruesome. One that got news coverage and all. It was a perfect story for women to tell their daughters. If you bring your indigent, drug making (not just selling) boyfriend into your home to live, he might stab you 27 times.
I was actually glad I was only an alternate.

If I ever get called for jury duty, I’m going in dressed like a Yogi and will say that all criminals should be executed without a trial ! *g*

The jury is in D.C., that’s where the crime occurred. I think there’s a better chance of conviction in DC than in Anchorage.

As far as these sorts of crimes where ’state of mind’ is involved, jury deliberations are tough and wearing on you. You have to figure out what someone else (Senator Toobz in this case) was thinking, and what he believed. It’s enough to make you want to tear your hair out.

The last big trial that I did was a murder trial that was fairly gruesome. (Any trial in which you have to walk the jury through forensic evidence about maggots and fly larvae growth patterns to determine a proximate range for time of death is never, ever fun. Nor are the corresponding autopsy photos.) I really felt for the jury because they literally had a huge pile of evidence to wade back through and match up to testimony to reach their verdict.

They convicted, btw. And good on them, because the murderer had seriously cold, dead Manson eyes.

It’s Manhattan. I’m sure half the people who get notices do the same thing.

I also made a royal pest of myself (I’m sure you’re not surprised) when I decided to show up for federal jury call. In voir dire, told the first panel (little old lady counterfeiting marriage liscenses for illegal immigrants) that I thought the system was fixed in favor of the party with the most resources, and therefore I would automatically vote against that side. In the second panel, a police brutality case, I said that I thought police were routinely & gratuitously brutal (hope you’re not lurking bjnts!). The third case was gender discrimination & I said I’d accused two employers of that. Then they let me go.

Question: If they’re not sequestered, what’s to keep them from being tampered with?

It’s the honor system.

Yeah — you guys have a MUCH bigger jury pool. *G*

I wish you were on the prosecutor’s team for this trial. No one better on our side, imho.

I sat on a civil jury once, keep getting knocked off criminal panels. Dude was trying to scam the insurance company via car crash. During the trial evidence came up that his family had a history of doing the same thing. Some chiropractors ended up in trouble with the Dept of Professional Regulation and the law as a result.

Christy,

The few people I’ve known who have served on criminal juries find it a completely emotionally destructive experience. Me for one.

Another of note is a niece of mine. It was felony murder. They found the guy guilty, though he did not even know that one of the other participants in the robbery brought a gun. The sentence, which the jury was unaware of when they decided the verdict, was 130 years. That was 7 years ago and she is still involved in the convicts life, trying to get him an appeal, etc.

Christy. I’m just in awe. It’s easy to see why you stay so calm here when things get funky.
It’s crazy, but I (the Methodist DFH) love to read authors like Patrica Cornwall. Go figure.

The judge warns them not to pay attention to any information about the trial, the people involved, the news, etc. When we were at the Libby trial, the jury forepoerson turned in one of the other jurors for potentially being tainted by having accidentally overheard or read something. (Can’t remember the specifics — would have to go back through my notes to recall exactly what it was.) Oh wait, I think I remember — the juror looked some things up in a dictionary and got dismissed as a result, maybe? Anyone remember exactly?

Have had that happen with other juries in my work, too. They rat each other out if there is cheating.

It’s why I always try to find a way to laugh when things get hairy. You have to or you lose your mind.

How did you go about selecting juries?

It’s really tough, especially where you have a case where the verdict can be so severe. The murder trial I referenced above carried a life sentence — we got a verdict of life with mercy, which means he can have consideration for parole after 20 years at the first point, and that only because the guy was really young. But, honestly, it’s one guy I hope they never, ever let out because he will kill again.

Sometimes, you just know…

Here’s the link to the article. You need to scroll down a bit before the article starts.
http://www.villagevoice.com/20…..e-convict/

I get to do jury duty on November 10th.

You get some basic background information on the jury pool from the forms that each juror fills out when they are called in for jury duty. Basic stuff like how old they are, where they work, some basic background questions, etc. Then we’d ask around to all the police officers and law enforcement folks we worked with about any background — who had family members with recent criminal histories or grudges about prior arrests, etc., who had issues with violent family members in the past — really depended on the type of trial as to what particular information was pertinent. We’d also look at the list ourselves and make notes. In a small town, you tend to know everyone’s business, so you often had a pretty good idea who was fair and decent and level-headed and most likely to listen to all of the evidence and render a fair verdict, who might have a particular grudge against the police and/or the person to be put on trial (those got noted for the judge for a strike for cause)…that sort of thing.

It is a tough thing to do because, in the end, you kind of have to rely a lot on your gut instinct. You don’t often get a fabu jury pool to start with, and you have only a very few strikes to use to rid your pool of the most heinous people because a strike for cause has to be very, very specific and based on clear evidence of known bias or some other problem (like a prior conviction for perjury, say…hi, Scooter!)

I’ve been a juror twice.

Once in a rape trial, the second in a tax evasion trial/failure to file trial. Conviction in the rape trial was fairly easy. The ADA was pretty well organized and the circumstances didn’t permit any sort of ’she wanted it’ defense.

The tax evasion trial hinged entirely on what the defendant believed at the time he filed. Figuring that out was a mess, because the IRS notices were disjointed — they charged him for three years, but only sent a warning letter that covered the last year. He failed to correct his return after getting the notice, so I could vote to convict on the year the IRS referenced. Couldn’t do it on the others, though. I think (and thought then) that he was probably guilty on the other counts, but I had doubts. Pissed off 10 of my fellow jurors, too. If I had been the only one, I think I would have caved. But it’s really difficult to try to figure out exactly what someone was thinking.

I’m mucho glad I’m not deliberating about Senator Toobz.

i was recently a potential juror, but realized i had a serious conflict timewise with when the trial was going to be and couldn’t get dismissed on that basis.

as both lawyers were asking us questions, it became clear that the trial was going to be for possession of less than a gram of cocaine. since it was his third offense and a mandatory sentence of YEARS in prison, i wanted to serve on the jury and find him innoncent.

however, i had that time conflict. the judge asked us if we could find someone guilty for possession of less than a gram of cocaine. i said no, given what the sentence was. he called me up individually and asked if i stood by that even though i’d be going against the law. i stood by it and he dismissed me as a juror.

i really hated having to do that and hoped that the jurors selected would be easy on the guy. what was totally shocking to me was how many people were so righteous and ready to put him away because it was the law – maybe 60% of those of us questioned as potential jurors.

What you likely didn’t get to hear, but would have at trial, is how many other times the guy had been caught, put through a diversion program, how many times he’d tried to sell as well as buy, etc. THe drug system is utter crap in terms of success rates, but he also would have likely been very, very familiar with the law on that and yet still couldn’t stop himself from violating it.

I have a lot of sympathy for addicts. Much less though for addicts who have a lot of chances and fail to avail themselves of them, and are stupid enough to keep getting caught on wired buys after having served time. Same goes for drunk drivers. You get caught once, that ought to be enough to scare the bejeebers out of you and your family. Then again, we ought to have better programs for prevention, too.

But jury nullification? Cannot in any way support that, thanks.

The Defense for Ted really FU. One simple You Tube would have gotten him off. All they had to do is play the clip of him explaining that the Internet is series of toobz! They would then say he was too incompetent to know what he was doing.

“State of mind” charges are the absolute worst. You so rarely get someone with a diary who writes down, in minute detail, what they are going to do and why. Damn that Perry Mason show for it’s misleading gotcha moments…

I just want to offer, here and now, that if anyone has some really nice and expense “stuff” they need to store/leave somewhere, my house is open to you. Call me big hearted and public minded.

That’s chump change.

I’m looking for some kind hearted soul to put another floor on my house, while I walk around wondering “How’d that happen?”

i actually was thinking of stevens buying them off…??

In my experience, I was impressed at how seriously everyone regarded the job. It seems that was your experience too.

Nah, I doubt that. They’ll be keeping an eye on all the jurors — they have to report in every morning about any contacts or even who they rode up in the elevator with,etc. And attorneys know better than to even try something, as do journalists, who are warned strenuously at the start of trial not to have any contact. Judges are very up front about penalties and problems involved.

If the IRS had sent notices covering all three years, I could have voted to convict. The defendant was at least an enchilada short of a combination plate, and fell in with the “form your own church and avoid taxes” scam. He had (incompetent) advice, and the goddam IRS didn’t disabuse him of the notion that he didn’t have to file. Except for the last year.

If they’d just done their job and sent him notices covering all three years … but if my auntie had wheels, she’d be a cabbie.

I’ve found that to be very true — I think the seriousness of having another person’s life potentially in your hands, or at least a serious chunk of it depending on the charge and potential sentence involved, makes you take it very seriously. Most jurors I’ve ever dealt with paid close attention throughout proceedings — and the more serious the charge, the more that’s true, I think.

It’s the same with both defense counsel and prosecutors as well as police officers who all take their jobs seriously — you know that someone’s life and justice hangs in the balance from your actions, decisions, and presentations of evidence. When it’s a really serious charge, like murder, where a life sentence (or a capital murder case in a death penalty state, which WV is not, thank goodness)…you risk a HUGE penalty based on what you charge to the grand jury all the way through the sentencing arguments if you win conviction at trial.

It’s an enormous responsibility, and one that should be taken very seriously by everyone involved.

It’s a heavy responsibility. And I’m sure you found out how heated things get in your deliberations. Hanging a jury isn’t an easy thing — there’s a lot of peer pressure. As I said, I don’t know that I could have held out if I’d been the only one voting No.

OT, but is it just me, or does anyone else feel Rethug Heather Wilson always looks like she’s about to cough up a hairball during her too frequent talking head show appearances?

She looks like that because she IS just about to hack up a hairball.

After I responded earlier, it occurred to me that’s what you were getting at. In my non-professional opinion, that would be terribly risky, as the bribee might turn him in. In most TV shows I’ve seen where this happens, the defendant has something to blackmail the juror with, a remote possibility.

Cannot support jury nullification? Why?

Because you either decide on the facts in evidence or you shouldn’t be on the jury. Period.

You don’t like the law? Then elect better people or run for office yourself and change it. Jury nullification is just as much an abomination of the system as the laws that people who push jury nullification purport to loathe — it screws with justice, and I find that utterly abhorrent. But I’ve always been a law and order kinda gal…

Sad to say but John Conyers Jr. had a bit of a problem with misusing staff, too.
A three year investigation of him was dropped Jan.3,2007.

He was investigated for using staffers for campaign work, personal errands, baby-sitting his children and tutoring his wife.

Somewhere in here lies the reason he can’t seem to do anything other than write sternly worded letters…I suspect that there was a trade-off…

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/20384

The last time I had jury duty it was a cocaine and marijuana sale bust. I answered questions about translation saying I thought there could be problems with literal versus contextual translations, and about drugs that that I didn’t know enough about cocaine to know if it should be illegal or not. I must have seemed too whacko for the prosecutor to risk.
The defense lawyer was very very young and we had three translators in the half day of jury selection, so I was glad not to have to sit through what could only have been a painful process to watch.

I don’t have to agree with a law to want to see it enforced, because the concept of democracy is that we abide by majority vote. That’s what makes voting rights so precious.

Jury nullification is just as much an abomination of the system as the laws that people who push jury nullification purport to loathe — it screws with justice, and I find that utterly abhorrent.

it’s an abomination of the system, but sometimes the system is a greater abomination.

when it’s the law to turn in your jewish neighbors? when it’s the law to turn in the run away slave?

i will never turn over my moral agency or responsibility to the cop out of “it’s the law.” there’s just too much history of unjust laws.

and i’ll even go one step further – that when the laws are unjust, justice requires that we break them. not willy nilly with no respect for them – but as many have done before us: break the unjust law and then put ourselves at the mercy of the system in the hopes of sparking the conscious of jurors and judges. because that is also a way to change the system – and to pretend that the only acceptable way is via elections is to ignore our history and our legacy.

OK..we’ve got someone who thinks that when people bring you stuff and you allow them to leave things in your house…that you use, because you have not thanked them for it, it is NOT a gift and you don’t have to report it.

Former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski got jail time for a lot less than that!

Thanks Christy.

digg

Two push polls at our house in two days. It’s official. WV is a battleground state.

Would you be more or less inclined to vote for John McCain if you knew he associated with someone who funded a former terrorist and if you knew he employed a person who lobbied for a foreign country and if you knew his wife had been a drug addict and if you knew the Ku Klux Klan endorsed him and if you knew his running mate’s husband wanted Alaska to secede from America and if you knew he had spent more than five years with Communists?

Let me think about it.

One simple You Tube would have gotten him off. All they had to do is play the clip of him explaining that the Internet is series of toobz! They would then say he was too incompetent to know what he was doing.

That would be one for the ages…a sitting U.S. senator arguing incompetence and stupidity to get off for taking bribes (or something very very closely resembling bribes).

Priceless.

She looks like that because she IS just about to hack up a hairball.

Now, that’s TV worth watching!

But I’ve always been a law and order kinda gal…

Strange what qualifies for a DFH these days. Darn Bush era screwing us all up.

eCAHNomics @ 54:

Well, when I lived on the upper west side, I did “throw away” a bunch of jury summons,,,,,, and I got a big fat summons to appear in court for not answering. Of course, when I showed up, trembling, there was a whole room full of people waiting for “Lets make a Deal.” I asked the magistrate what was the criminal penalty for not coming, and do you get a trial by jury. They all laughed (the scofflaws) but the magistrate was quite ticked.
I learned my lesson and thanked them for letting me come back!

The jury is the judge of the facts in the case. The judge is the judge of the law in the case. If the judge believes the law is being misapplied, she has the authority (and duty) to dismiss the charges.

The jury’s sole duty (and responsibility) is to determine to what extent each of the two competing narratives is true, and reach the legal decisions that result.

When the law requires those sorts of things, it’s time for civil disobedience. But like Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi, those who engage in civil disobedience must be prepared to suffer the legal consequences.

It’s that simple, or that difficult. Yes, we have unjust laws — lots of them. Why was crack cocaine possession/sale punished at ten times the level of powder cocaine? Because the law required it. That isn’t just, it just is. Or was, until the Supreme Court decided that Federal judges have to be allowed some discretion in sentencing.