tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249858307559481775.post8146914581559679560..comments2024-01-03T04:30:53.036-05:00Comments on FCPA Professor: Guilty Verdicts in Lindsey CaseMike Koehlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15749973007274251992noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249858307559481775.post-24090651008730850422011-12-02T10:58:31.393-05:002011-12-02T10:58:31.393-05:00to the juror; obviously a reasoned judge took you ...to the juror; obviously a reasoned judge took you and your colleagues' assessment and tossed it as trash out the door. my guess is as with other white collar prosecutions the jury contained very few college educated people, none with executive management experience, and assumed guilt rather than innocent. Individuals in our government under the direction of Breuer are committing crimes in order to falsely accuse and convict members of our society and a trusting but ignorant jury system is putty in their hands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249858307559481775.post-62092830899335570712011-09-14T13:26:22.890-04:002011-09-14T13:26:22.890-04:00With all due respect to the original poster, and w...With all due respect to the original poster, and with apologies for a response long after the fact, I feel that as a member of the jury, I should comment here. <br /> For one thing, you said yourself that you 'sat in for over half of the trial' - which, if my limited math skills are correct, means that you weren't present for up to 49% of the evidence presented. Well, I was there for the whole trial (it's one of the prime requsites for being on a jury, apparently) and I believed the verdict to be just that day, and I believe it to be just now. <br /> I don't know what this 'other website' that claimed the jury was split 50/50 is, but as someone who was in the jury room, I'm pretty certain they didn't get their information from anyone who was there. However, even if they did, what would that prove? Deliberation is a time for reflection on the evidence and the point at which the jury can finally discuss their thoughts with their peers. It's perfectly acceptable to change your opinion during deliberation. Your claim that the jury was tired and just wanted to go home is pretty insulting. Everyone in that room took their responsibility extremely seriously. The relatively quick verdict was a result of the overwhelming evidence against the defendants, not caused by l'ennui and a burning desire to get home before lunchtime. <br /> Considering you sat in the courtroom for 'more than half of the trial', one can safely assume you had some kind of vested interest in the outcome. The same cannot be said of any single member of the jury - that's another prime requisite - so I'd suggest that your opinion is far less reliable than that of the jury who, by their very nature, must be objective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249858307559481775.post-82772360913009489652011-07-19T20:34:37.263-04:002011-07-19T20:34:37.263-04:00it is true that mounting a vigorous defense is not...it is true that mounting a vigorous defense is not proof of innocence, but in this particular case.. the defendants are innocent,and the jury did demonstrate a terrifying negligence. How the DOJ can spend valuable resources trying to justify their usefulness by ruining the lives of demonstrably innocent people is completely beyond me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249858307559481775.post-17493434115196241032011-05-25T10:57:15.575-04:002011-05-25T10:57:15.575-04:00I'm sorry Anonymous above, but fighting the go...I'm sorry Anonymous above, but fighting the government long and hard and spending big on legal fees is not a legal defense and does not prove innocence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3249858307559481775.post-88583582745165812942011-05-12T02:31:35.242-04:002011-05-12T02:31:35.242-04:00As someone who sat in on over half of the trial, a...As someone who sat in on over half of the trial, all I can say is SHAME ON THE JURY. The jury was anxious to get out of that courtroom and get back to their lives. Anyone sitting through the court and listening to the evidence would agree that the government did not present enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.<br />On one website a jury stated that the jury was 50/50 prior to closing arguments. In the prosecutions closing arguments, they emphasized that arguments made by lawyers through the trial are not considered evidence - Obviously the jury did not take this mandate (even instructed in the jury instructions). Closing arguments are not evidence, just conjecture.<br />Why would two individuals and a company not settle out of court and set a precedent fighting the government long and hard for many months with stacking legal fees? Only if they were fighting for their innocence...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com