where a judge orders otherwise, a juror is free to say what ever the juror wants once the trial is over. The 1st amendment, you know.
We as lawyers are not free to ask them.
f) Communication With Jurors.
(1) At no time shall a lawyer connected with the trial of a case communicate extrajudicially, directly or indirectly, with a juror, with anyone the lawyer knows to be a member of the pool from which the jury will be selected, or with any member of such person's family.
(2) After discharge of a juror from further jury service, a lawyer may ask or answer questions and make comments to the former juror provided the questions or comments are not intended to harass or embarrass the juror or influence the juror's action in future jury service.
(3) A lawyer shall reveal promptly to the court knowledge of improper conduct by a juror or member of the jury pool, or by another toward a juror or member of the jury pool, or a member of the juror's or jury-pool member's family.
What are the rules concerning jurors making statements after a trial is concluded? Is there a mandatory time they can't speak to the press?
I do believe the 1st amendment does apply generally. I assume the attorneys above have posted factual information where their involvement in same is concerned.
[quote]I do believe the 1st amendment does apply generally.[/quote]
How general are we speaking C?
I can call you a "$!@#(&^ @$$&+(^" and that's 1st amendment protected, though not allowed here on AMG.
[url=http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=64075] Dugas Back In Custody In Maine [/url]
Another sad chapter in this sordid tale.
Just a quick aside, I know I have been generally critical of how the justice system handled this case, but one shining star has been DA Geoff Rushlau. He picked up the ball after the murder trial and got a conviction on the assault charges. I wasn't delighted with the plea, but Rushlau stuck to his guns on this case and followed up hard on the Tennessee probation violations. The guy has really done an outstanding job, and seems to be motivated by a real sense of applying the law in the pursuit of justice.
Rushlau seems to be one of those guys you might look at and say "Maybe there is some hope here."
For someone who claims to be such an expert on our court system, I would think you would know that judges are nominated by the Governor.
And approved by??????
Why in heck anyone would want this piece of trailer park trash back is
a total mystery to me. No justice is being served here except a
whole lot of expense to the tax payers of Maine!
But someones ego is satisfied. Look she was accquited
sometimes that happens for often it doesn't but let's move on.
It is not without reason that Tenn. lacked an appropriate trailer park for her!
Bruce, do you think that we should just ignore the probation violations? Drinking, assault, etc?
Yes, in the context that they were crimes committed in Tenn. and should have been
handled in Tenn.. Any probation she was on was transferred to Tenn. and they agreed to this
so they could have handled it. Was she ever prosecuted in Tenn. for these acts?
If she was not that would speak volumes to there significance!
As unpalatable as this was to all, they system worked whether we like it or not!
That is how it is suppose to be. The likability of an action by a jury is not
required to have a likable factor attached to it!
Next the learned DA will be proposing a acquitted defendant but guilty of a lessor crime
registry to protect "the children" and sooth the ego !
The legal system in the US has been taken over by the lefties and the feminsts. Look at the Duke "rape" case to see what passes for "justice" nowadays.
Same thing here.[/quote]
Ummm... I've not followed the Dugas case and will not comment thereupon, but the last time I looked, justice is absolutely being meted out in the Duke rape case. Clearly, there were grossly inappropriate actions on the part of Duke, Nifong and the media. The cliche is that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they're grinding away. Duke has settled with the accused for an undisclosed amount but you can bet that it covers the accuseds' legal fees plus a hefty chunk more. Nifong has been disbarred, may be charged criminally, and will almost certainly face significant financial consequence as a result of suits brought by the accused.
That leaves the media, which will probably get off without a bruise, in that in order to prove libel a plaintiff must prove that the media outlets acted with malice. Given the actions of Nifong and Duke, it's not a big stretch for the media to defend itself by claiming it was merely"reporting" what was going on.
Even so, two outta three ain't bad. Yes, the Duke defendants were screwed. But what goes around comes around, and justice is clearly being done. Our legal system is imperfect and there are clearly outrages, but I wouldn't cite this case as one of them.
[quote]By Dennis Hoey Portland Press Herald Staff Writer
August 14, 2007 02:53 PM
WISCASSETâ€”A former midcoast woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband in 2005 was back in court Tuesday where she admitted to assaulting her new husband at their home in Tennessee.
Justice Roland Cole ordered Amy Pelletier, whose maiden name is Bowen and who was formerly known as Amy Dugas, to serve four months in a county jail cell. Pelletier, 38, had been on probation when she assaulted her new husband earlier this year.