M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
I hope Garsh holds a few people in contempt and puts em in the clink for a week to give them time to think about why harassing jurors in a capital case might be a bad idea.
smastroyin said:Just a dumb dumb question - if these fucktards caused a mis-trial (by tainting/harassing more than 3 jurors) could the Commonwealth have a civil claim for them to be responsible for the court costs of a re-trial?
I would argue that a FA restriction against the press is entirely appropriate to protect the more important government interest of conducting a fair trial.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Is it illegal for the media to try to learn about jurors? I would think that sort of activity is protected by the first amendment. I would think the law prohibiting harassment -- which also has a pretty narrow definition of harassment -- would be unconstitutional if applied too restrictively. I know there are cases in which judges try to hold members of the press in contempt, but those usually go down in flames on appeal, except in rare cases in which the courtroom is partially sealed and the court makes the press members agree to certain conditions for limited access. You hope the press will act responsibly and will care about public backlash if they screw something up, but I'm not sure you can do much other than rant and rave.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Is it illegal for the media to try to learn about jurors? I would think that sort of activity is protected by the first amendment. I would think the law prohibiting harassment -- which also has a pretty narrow definition of harassment -- would be unconstitutional if applied too restrictively. I know there are cases in which judges try to hold members of the press in contempt, but those usually go down in flames on appeal, except in rare cases in which the courtroom is partially sealed and the court makes the press members agree to certain conditions for limited access. You hope the press will act responsibly and will care about public backlash if they screw something up, but I'm not sure you can do much other than rant and rave.
If jurors are complaining about the tails, the threat of this will bring a common sense solution. Judges regard jurors like fathers their 13 year old daughters. Deliberations in a criminal cases are the holiest of holys. The last thing this judge wants to do is try this case again.MentalDisabldLst said:I hope Garsh holds a few people in contempt and puts em in the clink for a week to give them time to think about why harassing jurors in a capital case might be a bad idea.
MentalDisabldLst said:I hope Garsh holds a few people in contempt and puts em in the clink for a week to give them time to think about why harassing jurors in a capital case might be a bad idea.
dcmissle said:If jurors are complaining about the tails, the threat of this will bring a common sense solution. Judges regard jurors like fathers their 13 year old daughters. Deliberations in a criminal cases are the holiest of holys. The last thing this judge wants to do is try this case again.
So it's really pretty simple -- keep doing it, and I'll throw your ass in jail for contempt. And when your station hires Wilmer Hale or Foley to vindicate this supposed First Amendement right, I will schedule a hearing for late next week.
I would think my right to feel safe as a juror trumps the needs of a news station to make more money.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:If you can't hold the press responsible for gathering and publishing national security secrets during war time, it's hard to see how you could burden their right to gather jury information unless they have specifically made themselves parties to the case. Judges try to hold non-parties in contemp and it usually doesn't work if they haven't appeared. Put in the overlay that there are two constitutional protections here -- freedom of the press and access to trials -- and I would think this is tough slogging. The more I think about the harassment statute the more I think it would be held unconstitutional as applied to the press except in really unusal circumstances like a member of the press saying, "vote for guilt and I will give you money." Ordinary newsgathering by the press in public places, no matter how repulsive, is not likely to be punishable.
NortheasternPJ said:Being an alternate must be extremely frustrating in a case like this. You sit there for a month, then when it's deliberation time you are excluded and there's a good chance you've wasted the last 30 days without even getting a say.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
As for contempt, that's just not how it works. To hold someone in civil contempt you need jurisdiction over them, first of all. That's hard if they aren't a party. Second, you can only do it because you need to in order to get them to comply with a court order -- that is, to do or not do something. When that's applied to the press, it's almost always going to look like a "prior restraint," which is virtually per se unconstitutional. A good first amendment lawyer would have them out by lunch. I've had two cases like this -- different context but I know the law a bit. They involved trials in which trade secret information was being discussed, where there were protective orders sealing the court for the trade secret testimony but a local station did a bunch of weasel stuff (including stuff they told the court they wouldn't) to try to get around the restrictions. The matter went up and down to the court of appeals twice in less than a day, and the deck was very heavily stacked in favor of the press. Two contempt orders were vacated.
I don't think your point of view is unreasonable. I'd probably agree with it at that level of abstraction.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:If you can't hold the press responsible for gathering and publishing national security secrets during war time, it's hard to see how you could burden their right to gather jury information unless they have specifically made themselves parties to the case. Judges try to hold non-parties in contemp and it usually doesn't work if they haven't appeared. Put in the overlay that there are two constitutional protections here -- freedom of the press and access to trials -- and I would think this is tough slogging. The more I think about the harassment statute the more I think it would be held unconstitutional as applied to the press except in really unusal circumstances like a member of the press saying, "vote for guilt and I will give you money." Ordinary newsgathering by the press in public places, no matter how repulsive, is not likely to be punishable.
As RR indicated, the station may have signed on to an agreement re press coverage. If so, you have the station by the throat.DennyDoyle said:
I agree with the first part. The station isn't going to want to be turned into a pariah and when the adults at the station hear what the guys on the ground were doing, common sense should govern and they likely will knock it off.
As for contempt, that's just not how it works. To hold someone in civil contempt you need jurisdiction over them, first of all. That's hard if they aren't a party. Second, you can only do it because you need to in order to get them to comply with a court order -- that is, to do or not do something. When that's applied to the press, it's almost always going to look like a "prior restraint," which is virtually per se unconstitutional. A good first amendment lawyer would have them out by lunch. I've had two cases like this -- different context but I know the law a bit. They involved trials in which trade secret information was being discussed, where there were protective orders sealing the court for the trade secret testimony but a local station did a bunch of weasel stuff (including stuff they told the court they wouldn't) to try to get around the restrictions. The matter went up and down to the court of appeals twice in less than a day, and the deck was very heavily stacked in favor of the press. Two contempt orders were vacated.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I agree with the first part. The station isn't going to want to be turned into a pariah and when the adults at the station hear what the guys on the ground were doing, common sense should govern and they likely will knock it off.
As for contempt, that's just not how it works. To hold someone in civil contempt you need jurisdiction over them, first of all. That's hard if they aren't a party. Second, you can only do it because you need to in order to get them to comply with a court order -- that is, to do or not do something. When that's applied to the press, it's almost always going to look like a "prior restraint," which is virtually per se unconstitutional. A good first amendment lawyer would have them out by lunch. I've had two cases like this -- different context but I know the law a bit. They involved trials in which trade secret information was being discussed, where there were protective orders sealing the court for the trade secret testimony but a local station did a bunch of weasel stuff (including stuff they told the court they wouldn't) to try to get around the restrictions. The matter went up and down to the court of appeals twice in less than a day, and the deck was very heavily stacked in favor of the press. Two contempt orders were vacated.
lexrageorge said:I would think my right to feel safe as a juror trumps the needs of a news station to make more money.
Here is a Colorado appellate decision affirming reporters being held in contempt for talking to jurors after proceedings had begun -- and the court affirmed monetary sanctions that reflected the cost of several additional trial days and the cost of preparing the contempt motion.smastroyin said:Just a dumb dumb question - if these fucktards caused a mis-trial (by tainting/harassing more than 3 jurors) could the Commonwealth have a civil claim for them to be responsible for the court costs of a re-trial?
smastroyin said:It seems Sultan asked for another sidebar with the two jurors.
Since then, Garsh has come back, and is demanding someone from WHDH testify under oath about whether they were acting alone (she assumes they were not) and wants someone there by 1215 or she will bar them from the courtroom.
"Garsh questioned WHDH reporter Bryon Barnett, who was in court Thursday morning but was not in the van at the time of the incident. She instructed him to find out what happened and explain it to her later. She threatened to ban WHDH from covering the trial going forward.Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Awesome.
smastroyin said:WHDH granted a time extension so their counsel could be present, apparently.
They also issued a statement of no wrongdoing.
Rovin Romine said:This should be amusing, one way or the other. Is anyone streaming this? My usual link isn't working for me. I assume WHDH isn't going to. . .
(Also, driving to emergency hearings like this sucks. In the context of my practice, it's usually for an individual (or I'm the one calling the hearing.) I've never represented a large company in this situation, but the small ones tend to go into a dither when they're quickly pushed for information. I'm sorry I didn't return your call. Joe will talk to Bob and get back to you. What do you mean, "testify?" Me? I may have to be there? An affidavit? Uh. Herm. When I said I knew what happened, I meant that Ken told me something. But Joe's your guy. Unless Bob calls first. But Bob's at lunch. In Ecuador. Can't you tell the judge what happened? Can't you just get the judge to do this next week?)
Wow if this is true, I will have to be more vigilant about getting out. (I'm one of those people they like having on juries)Rovin Romine said:
Apparently the rule is the juror's names and addresses are publicly available following the trial.
Brian Fraga @BfragaHN 2m2 minutes ago
Garsh: no contact order also mandates physical separation from jurors #AaronHernandez
Garsh: WHDH driver's actions led him to have contact w/jurors. The driver is ordered off the trial, barred from courthouse #AaronHernandez
Garsh accepts that WHDH didn't try to undermine court orders, but the driver can no longer cover the trial #AaronHernandez
Rovin Romine said:Well, that's not so bad. I had thought the driver actually followed the jurors and/or took photographs of them. The GPS explanation sounds plausible. Although it's a little weird the driver called attention to himself with his actions. If he just sat there or observed from a distance this probably wouldn't have come to a head.
I expect the media will be more careful now.
And we know that at least two members of the jury are observant/perceptive and pretty forthright. They also didn't use this as an excuse to bail on the process.
Someone needs to suggest this to Peter King so he can take credit for it. It has everything he loves. Kudos, beer, and coffee.Rovin Romine said:Also, should one of our ap developers want to put this in play, I'd like to take this moment to note the world really needs something like a "Let's buy that guy/gal a beer/coffee ap." It would be a quick way to zip out a kudo to someone - not cash per se, but a voucher for a purely recreational reward.
If I had one on my phone I'd send one to Fraga. He's done a great job covering this. I know it's his job, but still. Oh - and if the ap happens, I want 5%. And a beer. Or a coffee.
Rovin Romine said:And we know that at least two members of the jury are observant/perceptive and pretty forthright. They also didn't use this as an excuse to bail on the process.
Because this is crack cocaine for news outlets, which would like an exclusive and barring that first dibs.moly99 said:
At this point they probably want to see it through.
Out of curiosity, why do the press feel they have a right to contact with juries? If it's just for an interview after the trial can't they get that at the courthouse? I would be pretty upset if I were on the Hernandez trial and had people following me home to talk to me knowing that several of Hernandez's friends who participated in the killings were still out and about.