Doreen Trial Set for August 20, 2013

[notorial dissent]

A nice alternate universe fantasy, but not very likely.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The jury is deliberating now. They spent two hours on Friday doing so and will return on Monday morning to continue. The fact they did not reach a verdict quickly means that at least one juror is a bit slow and the others are desperately trying to get them to understand the technicalities of the charges so they can all find her guilty and get home.

FTFY.

[LPC]

Here is a web posting that includes what purport to be the opening and closing statements of Doreen Hendrickson to the jury.

I can't find anything about a jury verdict yet.

[Dezcad]

Looks like the jury is having lunch again today.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO: 13-20371
vs Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
DOREEN HENDRICKSON,
Defendants.
/
ORDER TO PROVIDE LUNCH FOR JURORS
The Court on its own motion orders that the 12 jurors empaneled and sworn, be
furnished lunch at the expense of the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan.
IT IS ORDERED.
/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
United States District Judge
Dated: 11/4/13

[AndyK]

Here is a web posting that includes what purport to be the opening and closing statements of Doreen Hendrickson to the jury.

I can't find anything about a jury verdict yet.

Highly unlikely that the opening and closing statements (as posted by Perpetual Prevaricator Pete) bear much resemblance to what the jury actually heard.

I suspect that the viewable documents reflect what Pontificating Pete wrote for Dolorous Doreen to deliver and he is sticking with them.

Had Doreen actually followed Pete's script, she would have been interrupted by innumerable objections (all sustained) resulting in an instruction by the Judge for the jury to disregard everything between "Good afternoon" and "Thank you."

[darling]

Hung jury. 11-1 for conviction.

http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs- ... n-verdict/

[The Observer]

And, predictably, the idjits are calling it a victory and a push for jury nullification.

[webhick]

It appears that 1 in 12 people think that they are serving on a jury to decide the law, not guilt or innocense.

But hats off to the other 11 for standing their ground.

[Quixote]

What am I missing. The hold out juror only said he wasn't convinced. I think it's a little early to call him a proponent of jury nullification.

[The Observer]

What am I missing. The hold out juror only said he wasn't convinced. I think it's a little early to call him a proponent of jury nullification.

Not sure if you are referring to my post, but I didn't claim that the hold-out juror was a jury nullification proponent. Only that the article by Kathy Oh was pushing for expansion of jury nullification.

[Dr. Caligari]

With the verdict 11-1 for conviction, I assume they will re-try her?

[Quixote]

What am I missing. The hold out juror only said he wasn't convinced. I think it's a little early to call him a proponent of jury nullification.

Not sure if you are referring to my post, but I didn't claim that the hold-out juror was a jury nullification proponent. Only that the article by Kathy Oh was pushing for expansion of jury nullification.

I was responding to Webhick's post.

With the verdict 11-1 for conviction, I assume they will re-try her?

I would think so.

[AndyK]

Any thoughts on a government motion for a directed verdict overriding the jury?

[LPC]

With the verdict 11-1 for conviction, I assume they will re-try her?

I would think so.

I would think so also.

It's not a complicated case to try (mostly documents and few if any witnesses), and having gone this far, I would think that the government would try her again.

There's also the public perception problem, because you don't want tax nuts thinking it's okay to disobey court orders, or that there's some validity to what Pete and Doreen stand for.

The tax nuts think that the government is trying to "make an example" of Doreen, and there's some truth to that, as there is in every criminal prosecution. As was said by some judge long ago, we do not hang horse thieves because a horse is stolen, but so that horses are *not* stolen.

[LPC]

Any thoughts on a government motion for a directed verdict overriding the jury?

Not possible. The judge can over-rule the jury if the jury convicts based on what is considered insufficient evidence, but the judge can't over-rule the jury if it acquits (or is hung).

I think that there might be some states in which some crimes can result in a conviction by a majority vote by the jury, but that's not the federal system, which requires unanimous verdicts.

[wserra]

Any thoughts on a government motion for a directed verdict overriding the jury?

Not possible. The judge can over-rule the jury if the jury convicts based on what is considered insufficient evidence, but the judge can't over-rule the jury if it acquits (or is hung).

I thought Andy was kidding. I hope Andy was kidding.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

I think that there might be some states in which some crimes can result in a conviction by a majority vote by the jury, but that's not the federal system, which requires unanimous verdicts.

I don't think a conviction by a simple majority has ever been found constitutional. For example, in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Georgia law that permitted convictions on a 5-1 vote of a 6-person jury - a jury that small must be unanimous. The Supreme Court had previously held that states may employ juries of less than 12. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). The Supreme Court has also approved a 9-3 verdict from a 12-person jury. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1971). How about 8-2 from a 10-person jury? 7-2 from a 9-person jury? Who knows? This whole examination always struck me as a classic slippery slope, and pointless besides. How can you possibly find a Constitutional basis to conclude that a 9-3 verdict is fine, but an 8-4 must be reversed?

But they didn't ask me.

And yes, I agree that the govt will (and should) retry Doreen, after an 11-1 for conviction.

[LPC]

Any thoughts on a government motion for a directed verdict overriding the jury?

Not possible. The judge can over-rule the jury if the jury convicts based on what is considered insufficient evidence, but the judge can't over-rule the jury if it acquits (or is hung).

I thought Andy was kidding. I hope Andy was kidding.

I thought about that, but he was kidding, he should have been more over the top. (I.e., "Any thoughts on the judge following his Illuminati oath and directing a verdict to override the jury?")

I don't think a conviction by a simple majority has ever been found constitutional. For example, in Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978), the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Georgia law that permitted convictions on a 5-1 vote of a 6-person jury - a jury that small must be unanimous. The Supreme Court had previously held that states may employ juries of less than 12. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). The Supreme Court has also approved a 9-3 verdict from a 12-person jury. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1971). How about 8-2 from a 10-person jury? 7-2 from a 9-person jury? Who knows? This whole examination always struck me as a classic slippery slope, and pointless besides. How can you possibly find a Constitutional basis to conclude that a 9-3 verdict is fine, but an 8-4 must be reversed?

Thanks. (And agreed.)

[Judge Roy Bean]

It appears that 1 in 12 people think that they are serving on a jury to decide the law, not guilt or innocense.

But hats off to the other 11 for standing their ground.

IMHO it's more like one of the jurors has harbored sufficient ill will toward "the government" to assume the role of diligent defender.

It's easy to take that stance - I can almost hear the jury-room argument: "What if it was you being unjustly prosecuted - wouldn't you want at least one person to hold out against the machine?"

Sometimes these are just messages the juror wants to send.

[wserra]

Or maybe that one juror just had a conscientious reasonable doubt.

Unless the juror speaks up, or we hear of the events in the jury room from other jurors, we have no way of knowing.

[notorial dissent]

Let's not overlook the all too likely possibility that the holdout juror is just dumbern' the average rock and that was all that was involved in it.