There should be exclusive federal jurisdiction over cases like this. With an LEO sitting on the jury there was no hope for any justice.Hopefully the feds will clean up here.
The feds won't touch this with a ten foot pole because they too know Mineo is lying.And a meter maid (my apologies for using a politically incorrect term) is not a law enforcement officer. Nor, in my experience, do they particularly like cops.You might also notice this was not a hung jury.
Give me a break!http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/careers/civilian_opportunities.shtml
The key word there is "civilian."I really hope you're not going to argue with me about what a law enforcement officer is.
I am arguing that there was an employee of the NYPD was on the jury. I hope you are not going to argue with me about what an obvious and manifest conflict of interest that is. Like I said on the other thd: the prosecutor will definitely be at Cleetus's free at last party. Perhaps they will get the Chippendale's Dancers to entertain the meter maids.
That's not what you said. You said "Law Enforcment Officer." And you're wrong.But no, I don't see a conflict on interest. Not with 11 others.So where would you draw the line? What about firemen? Other city employee? Anybody who works for the government? New Yorker? Americans?No, just because somebody works for the department does not mean they have police solidarity or been sucked into the vast oppressive conspiracy.It's supposed to be a jury of peers. I would hope the deck wouldn't be stacked with a "Bronx Jury" of 12 cop haters!And take a step back, can you imagine taking your anti-defendant positions if it were anybody but police officers on trial? I doubt it.If I were on trial, do you think a secretary at Queens College couldn't be a fair juror?
If it were any other defendant, working for any other employer, there is no way that somebody working for the same employer as the defendant would be on the jury. That is doubly true if the defendant's crime could subject the common employer to civil money damages.If it somehow did happen, I would be as outraged as I am here.More importantly it wouldn't happen. The prosecutor would not let it. The juror would be challenged for cause, by the prosecutor, and summarily stricken. There would be no objection and no argument.
Buddy, let me see if I understand you. You are saying that there was law enforcemnet officer on the jury, and that is why he was acquitted?
Seems to be what he's saying.Buddy, by your logic, no taxpayer should be on the jury since that's where the money comes from.
I think the prosecution did everything it could to throw the case. I thought that before the verdict came down. I think that allowing the NYPD traffic enforcement agent was an especially egregious example of the prosecution trying to throw the case, that even blue wallers like yourselves should be able to acknowledge and understand. I don't think it was the only example of the prosecution evincing dereliction of its duty, or the only reason that the rapist was acquitted.
By that logic no one arrested would have a fair trial because someone would be lnked to the crime some how. Like Peter said, no taxpayer could sit on a jury.
No, successfully challenging a juror for cause is a bit more fact sensitive than Professor Moskos is suggesting. Courts can see a difference between Joe Taxpayer and Joe NYPD Employee.Besides that, the prosecution should have objected to the presentation of evidence of the civil suit and kept it out on relevancy grounds. This is another, slightly more subtle, but probably even more effective, example of the prosecutor doing something to throw the case.
Post a Comment