Once he is accused of breaking the law he's no longer a juror and becomes a defendant like any other. In fact if you read the article he already has an attorney. And he did break the law, jurors swear to abide by the laws of the court and he broke that oath.
If by Fair and PUBLIC trial you mean that what this juror did was correct I completely disagree. The trial IS public, its open anyone can attend the proceeding
s. But the jury is supposed to not in any way communicat
e about the trial with ANYONE while the trial is going on (after they are free to do whatever they want). If the trial is being covered in the media they aren't even supposed to read about it. That law makes sense because there would be so much potential for jurors to be influenced by friends or media or whatever and they are supposed to make up their minds ONLY on what is in the trial.
This is as much for the benefit of the defendants
. For example, suppose the police violate a defendant'
s rights and find a bunch of evidence that the judge throws out. As a juror you aren't even supposed to know about that evidence but if you follow the case in the paper or online you may hear about it.
About FacebookRead the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment