Legal Random, Random

[ti-amie]

More from Avenatti jury:

[ti-amie]

More details about what happened in the courtroom via @InnerCityPress

[ti-amie]

P2

[JazzNU]

Re Avenatti jury deliberations:

It is not very early in the deliberations process for that kind of note, it means they've polled and there's a wide divide and no movement. And I can't begin to tell you how bad of a comparison Maxwell's trial is to use for anything that isn't damn near a capital offense.

[ti-amie]

Everyone's nightmare. This might be why the note was sent yesterday.

[ti-amie]

They have alternate jurors I would think? Get rid of her.

[JazzNU]

They have alternate jurors I would think? Get rid of her.

Hastily getting rid of a juror during deliberations is great grounds for mistrial or appeal. That's not how alternates are supposed to be used. Several more steps needed by the judge before that juror should be dismissed. AUSA knows that, they just think they are about to win if they get rid of that juror.

There's bias present here in the coverage obviously and maybe by the judge a bit too, there doesn't seem to be a note about why the AUSA is so swift to want to get rid of the juror in the way that there is towards Avenatti wanting to keep them, for instance. And inserting the term "wryly".

[ti-amie]

They have alternate jurors I would think? Get rid of her.

Hastily getting rid of a juror during deliberations is great grounds for mistrial or appeal. That's not how alternates are supposed to be used. Several more steps needed by the judge before that juror should be dismissed. AUSA knows that, they just think they are about to win if they get rid of that juror.

There's bias present here in the coverage obviously and maybe by the judge a bit too, there doesn't seem to be a note about why the AUSA is so swift to want to get rid of the juror in the way that there is towards Avenatti wanting to keep them, for instance. And inserting the term "wryly".

Thank you for the explanation as to why this obstructive juror hasn't been immediately removed. I've served on cases where alternates were dismissed at the beginning of deliberations so maybe that 's why I was a bit confused about the situation. Those may have been civil cases though. It's been a while.

I don't quite understand your point re bias. Bias against Avenatti or bias against prosecutors?

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

This just goes to show jury rooms are not for the faint of heart.

[JazzNU]

Thank you for the explanation as to why this obstructive juror hasn't been immediately removed. I've served on cases where alternates were dismissed at the beginning of deliberations so maybe that 's why I was a bit confused about the situation. Those may have been civil cases though. It's been a while.

I don't quite understand your point re bias. Bias against Avenatti or bias against prosecutors?

This doesn't sound like an obstructive juror, not yet at least. Calling a woman emotional is about the worst way I can think of to bring up the issue of her not deliberating. Her not agreeing with them so they can go home now and not keep this going isn't a reason to replace a juror. There needs to be a reason for the move, essentially, good cause for the change, something that will stand up to appeal. You dismiss a juror based on that note and the appeal paperwork would be filed by end of day today. It's a very rash decision to just boot a juror because they don't agree with you, that's the point of the jury, if there's one holdout, that might speak to the veracity of the evidence not clearing the hurdle of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, it may have been civil cases, but also, just may not have been federal. There are clear rules and decent case law on how you are supposed to dismiss a federal juror to hold up on appeal. Hastily is not the way.

Honestly, I'd advocate for a closed court on matters like this. The public does not need to know that it was a woman. The reporters will pounce. There are some very sexist comments already about her.

[ti-amie]

TBH I was surprised the sex of the juror was revealed. I've never served on a Federal jury and I would guess that the rules are different.

[ti-amie]