David Breland reports in the Hattiesburg Americanthere was possible intimidation of the jury in Ware v. Dupree:
"A member of the jury in Ware v. DuPree has come forward with their version of the events that transpired in the jury deliberation room Tuesday evening. (Their?)
The biggest question is: why did a juror or jurors change their vote after the jury notified Judge Coleman of a 9-3 verdict giving Dave Ware the most legal votes in the June 4 general election? (Their?)
According to a note sent to Judge Coleman during deliberations and from the juror’s interview, a member of the jury was intimidated about revealing their decision in public. (Their?)
“I know they felt intimidated,” the juror said. “When he [Judge Coleman] polled us in open court, we all were upset. He should have never done that.”
The juror stated the largest topic of discussion in deliberations was the illegal absentee ballots, a major part of Ware’s legal case.
“We mostly discussed the ballots and applications. They were there and that was proof, you can’t deny it,” the juror said.
Those who dissented with a verdict in favor of Ware were afraid of tossing out legal ballots along with illegal ballots, the juror said.
“The ones that voted against Mr. Ware were concerned that the good ballots were thrown out. They were adamant about that,” the juror said. “We talked about the [Mississippi] Supreme Court case the lawyers brought up that said the legal ballots have to be thrown out with the illegal ones. We asked for that case to read more about it, but they wouldn’t give us that.”..." Rest of article"
Damn right Coleman should have never done that. Polling jurors in public is nothing less than a corruption of the judicial system. Turns out Enoch Sanders was right about Judge Coleman. This sorry excuse of a judge actually polled the jurors in an open courtroom. One can just imagine the outrage if a jury in 1960s voted to convict Beckwith and then changed their votes if asked how they voted in an open courtroom in front of a bunch of angry klukkers? It would have been wrong then and its wrong now. I bet you would see Fairly and the NAACP marching if he was alive at that time. Won't see the NAACP protesting this type of intimidation, will you? It is the position of this website that the secret vote of a jury is just as important as the secret vote that takes place in the voting booths on election day. It is true there are unanimous votes and thus everyone knows how each juror votes is known. However, the judge should never ask the jurors in public how they vote.
Note: I may not like the rule but as a commentor pointed out, here is the rule:
If the foreman or the jury panel answers in the affirmative, the judge shall call upon the foreman or any member of the panel to deliver the verdict in writing to the clerk or the court. The court may then examine the verdict and correct it as to matters of form. The clerk or the court shall then read the verdict in open court in the presence of the jury. The court shall inquire if either party desires to poll the jury, or the court may on its own motion poll the jury. If neither party nor the court desires to poll the jury, the verdict shall be ordered filed and entered of record and the jurors discharged from the cause, unless a bifurcated hearing is necessary. If the court, on its own motion, or on motion of either party, polls the jury, each juror shall be asked by the court if the verdict rendered is that juror's verdict. In a criminal case where the verdict is unanimous and in a civil case where the required number of jurors have voted in the affirmative for the verdict, the court shall order the verdict filed and entered of record and discharge the jury unless a bifurcated hearing is necessary. If a juror dissents in a criminal case or in a civil case if less than the required number cannot agree the court may: 1) return the jury for further deliberations or 2) declare a mistrial. No motion to poll the jury shall be entertained after the verdict is ordered to be filed and entered of record or the jury is discharged
23 comments:
Under Uniform Circuit Court Rule 3.10 the judge is required to poll the jury if either party requests it. The judge can also do it on his own. It's reversible error not to.
Coleman polled the Jury because a) Dupree's team requested and b) it is required by law. McLarty v. State, 842 So.2d 590 (Miss.App. 2003).
I said public.
Rule 3.10 describes polling in open court. As does the case law, which says that the purpose of polling is for the jury members to assent to the verdict in OPEN COURT. This is black letter law, which I know may not sway "the position of this website." But fortunately, we are a nation of laws, not of blogs.
It has to be in open court, which by definition is public.
You can bash the rule, but the judge was just doing what the law required him to do. It's not the judge's fault you don't like the rule.
Well thank you for the legal education. Happy is the man who blesseth his chastisement. A law that needs to be changed then because yes, as someone just commented, it smacks of Mafia-style justice.
If there is another trial, I'd ask for a different venue.
Juries are polled in public all the time. That the media (and bloggers) are making a big deal of a routine procedure shows ignorance of the judicial system that is frankly embarrassing. Sit in a court room on any given day and you will see the jury polled. And, "mafia-style justice," really? Just a tad dramatic.
Appreciate your frustration, KF. Intimidation seemed to be 100% relative to this case yet the law allows for the public polling. Catch-22. Your example of the 1960s jury is a very good example.
I've sat in quite a few courtrooms. And hearings too. Even some trials.
I'm guessing there won't be another trial.
We need to carve out an exception for verdicts related to election contests, for the same reason we have secret ballots when we vote. An in camera poll by the judge should be sufficient to protect the litigants.
Polling is necessary because, unfortunately, many juries are comprised of people who are complete idiots. I have seen multiple instances of juries that announced a verdict in favor of one party who, when polled, actually voted 7-5 for the party. I have also seen juries say they were deadlocked (in civil cases) at 11-1. If you are one of the brilliant people who comment on this blog about the horrible state of our justice system, in Hinds County and elsewhere, and you have ever gotten out of jury duty, know that you are the primary reason for our failing judicial system.
None of this appears to have been the cause of the problems in Hattiesburg. The jury understood, exactly, what the different vote counts meant (Dupree's attorneys explained on closing that they "only needed 4 of you"). The ultimate verdict in Hattiesburg was the result of pure intimidation.
I suspect that the next 100 years of this country's existence will find whites profoundly and sincerely grateful for the work of LBJ, MLK and the protections of civil rights law and, ironically, will find people like Precious Martin arguing against civil rights legislation. My advice to the Republican party would be to strengthen voter protection laws, while they still can, instead of weakening them.
I bet this Hattiesburg nightmare is just the tip of the iceberg. The is no doubt that the election process has been high jacked by the same cast of characters, charlatans, buffoons and thugs across the entire state of Mississippi...Jim Crow my foot! We now have black crow! Were is the Justice Department?
11:26, whites are not protected by federal law and never will be.1:40 the justice department wrote the handbook the thugs use to steal the elections.
Kingfish, get to WDAM and see this
http://www.wdam.com/story/23021958/jury-told-judge-in-hattiesburg-election-trial-someone-is-afraid-of-retaliation
Copy of note showing 9-3 verdict and note saying "Someone is afraid of retaliation."
http://www.wdam.com/story/23032187/hattiesburg-election-trial-witness-fears-for-her-life
Witness is fearful for her life following testimony. Good reason to fear retaliation.
Best just just take this one down and start over. Take a mulligan
From the Urban Dictionary.
An old jazzer term for a marijuana cigarette or joint.
Don't bogart that mulligan, my friend
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/23032187/hattiesburg-election-trial-witness-fears-for-her-life
this is about a witness, not a juror.
Mississippi is the only state that does NOT permit some form of juror's question at trial. Texas allows questions in civil trials, but not criminal ones.
The answer to "complete idiots" in the jury box is make it possible that a Star Juror can save the day for an innocent defendant before he/she becomes a victim of malicious prosecution, judicial misconduct and an incompetent public defender. The sad cases of Julian Mingo, Mary Sue Shields and Ronnie Mitchener in the 16th Mississippi Judicial court being the prime examples.
This case isn't over. Over the next 2 weeks there will be more stories which will expose the truth regarding the Dupree mafia and its attempts to taint this election through ballot tampering and witness intimidation.
All you early commentators - check the facts here.
The judge polled the jury - asked each juror individually "if they agreed this was the jury's verdit?" Each juror individually stated that the 9-3 Ware is the Mayor was the jury's verdit.
That is what is required by the Rule. What was error here was the judge went back and asked each juror how they voted - Dupree or Ware. That is not according to the rule.
That question violated the secrecy of the jury's deliberations.
There is a difference between the "polling of the jury" and asking each juror how they voted individually.
Rule 3.10 states, in part: "If the court, either on its on motion or on motion of either party, polls the jury, each juror shall be asked by the court IF THE VERDICT RENDERED IS THAT JUROR'S VERDICT".
In the subject instance, the judge asked that question as to the 9-3 verdict rendered. Each juror answered in the affirmative.
What the judge did in this case appears to have crossed this line, when he went back and asked each juror - "you misunderstood my question. How did you vote? Dupree or Ware?"
That is a different polling than is done in civil cases. And that may well be reversible error.
10:50, that article was about witness intimidation. The jury was also intimidated. In fact the note from the jury after being sent back following the 9-3 / 8-4 fiasco that they would report to the judge in private but not in open court because one juror was afraid to say in open public. The judge could have called each juror individually into chambers, with attorneys present, and asked them for their vote after receiving such a notice from the jury. But he didn't.
If the jury voted 9-3, and each juror reported that the 9-3, Ware is the Mayor verdict was the correct jury verdict, what happened to the secret vote that occurs in the jury room when the Judge asked each juror what their individual vote was? Why not let them deliberate in public, and vote in public. There is a reason for the secret deliberations of a jury, and this "polling" threw it in the wind.
Post a Comment