Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

The Trials Of August: Jurors Struggle In High-Profile Federal Cases

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Whether it's a result of inartful prosecutions, confusing legal instructions, sketchy defendants, bad karma, selfish individualists, or just a dog-days-of-summer sort of thing, it's clearly been a bad month for jurors in high-profile cases.

Last Tuesday, federal jurors in the corruption and obstruction trial of Rod Blagojevich threw up their hands after weeks of exasperating deliberations and declared they were hung up on 23 of the 24 counts against the former Illinois governor. The deadlock and resultant mistrial already has spawned a new trial date for Blagojevich (January 2011), great additional expenses of time and energy for lawyers, and many questions about how and why the panel could become so dysfunctional toward the end of its deliberations.

Did cocky prosecutors fail to give jurors a traceable timeline? Were the wiretaps too complex? Or did some jurors just get sour? This is the group, remember, that asked the judge to send back to the jury room a copy of the text of the standard juror's oath -- just a few hours before formally declaring a deadlock. The oath was this: "Do each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try, and a true deliverance make, in the case now on trial and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God?" If you need to see this simple oath after three weeks of deliberations, some might argue, you don't deserve to be deliberating someone's fate.

It's easy to write off one bad jury. But jurors in another important and ongoing federal trial, the corporate fraud case against David H. Brooks, appear to be even less dedicated than were their Second City counterparts. Brooks and a colleague are accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from his body armor company and defrauding the feds as well. Prosecutors have aimed to convince jurors that Brooks used the ill-gotten gains to pay for porn, hookers, race horses, and $100,000 belt buckles. The trial has involved evidence about the purported use of memory-erasing drugs and sex romps to Las Vegas. Indeed, if there were awards for these sorts of things, the Brooks trial would be a shoo-in for trial of the year and certainly a candidate for a future made-for-television drama.

Last week, as deliberations at the federal courthouse in Central Islip, N.Y., rolled on, a member of Brooks' jury told the judge that some colleagues "sit there and read testimony that doesn't relate to the charges we are discussing." U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert gave jurors what observers called a "pep talk" and then told the members of the panel to go back into their room and continue to deliberate. But this week another juror note came Judge Seybert's way. It read: "I would like to be excused from the jury because there are people on the jury who at times do not add any input. . . . I feel that they are prolonging the case because they don't want to go back to work."

The good news, I guess, is that at least these bad-acting jurors appear to have jobs apart from judging Brooks. The bad news is that those jobs evidently pay less than the $40-per-day juror pay the feds give out for service. But it gets worse. Last week, prosecutors initiated a grand jury proceeding into whether Brooks (and others) have engaged in some sort of jury tampering. The issue arose when federal marshals discovered a note that Brooks was trying to conceal from them. It is unclear what's in the note, whether the jury-tampering concerns will be alleviated before the Brooks jury returns with a verdict, or whether the verdict will itself reveal clues about the alleged tampering. It's also unclear today whether Judge Seybert will initiate any form of contempt hearing for any jurors she believes may have violated their oath of service.

If anything, the government's evidence against Brooks was far stronger and more comprehensive than was the evidence against Blagojevich. If anything, and wiretaps or no, federal prosecutors were likely more confident that jurors would more easily see through Brooks' alleged plot than the complex political dance Blagojevich orchestrated. The implosion of one jury in a big criminal case is a bad result. The implosion of two in a row might be considered a trend. That's why Washington is watching Judge Seybert's courtroom more closely than usual these days.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

google search engine www he was only going to collect 10K

August 27 2010 at 8:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Heck, It's been said that fifty percent of adults can't read at an 8th grade level. We can trust them to make correct decisions on complex issues?

August 27 2010 at 2:53 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Pascal Redfern

There may be other factors at work here. Jurors are not dumb. Some of getting tired of the crazy laws we have and the complexity of certain cases. So they resort to common sense and that is refreshing. If the evidence isn't there and if the laws are too complex or nuts, then there is always jury nullification. So keep at at jurors.

August 26 2010 at 11:58 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>