One Fucking Juror Held Out, Anonomously, Against Death For Moussaoui

Liberals: enemies of America.

It's outrageous. I speculated that one cocksucker liberal had lied to get on the Moussaoui jury, lied about his or her pre-existing complete objection to the death penalty. Juries in capital cases are supposed to be "death-qualified," and those with a commitment against the death penalty are required by law to admit this in voir dire so they can be removed from the jury pool.

The system works, unless one son of a bitch decides to subvert the law and democracy itself -- by interposing a one-man veto over the popularly-enacted laws -- by lying to get on a jury.

And of course this will usually require a judge willing to, let us say, be less than vigorous in questioning the jurors, and turn a blind eye to those who appear to be deceptive or evasive in their answers. A judge like Marge Brinkema, for example.

The jury split 11-1, 10-2, 10-2 in favor of the death penalty in the three counts. Only ONE juror refused to find for the death penalty on any count.

Here's the kicker: the voting was anonymous. Furthermore, after the jury would keep finding one holdout on one count, they would attempt to argue out the reasons for keeping Moussaoui alive. But the bastard who kept voting against the death penalty remained silent during these deliberations, and refused to express his or her reasons for voting against the death penalty.

The other jurors tried to engage this secret terrorist-sympathizer, even offering their own anti-death penalty arguments in an effort to draw him or her into the discussion, but he or she kept perfectly quiet.

Jurors are supposed to deliberate. This juror refused to deliberate. Jurors are supposed to discuss the issues with other jurors, so that they may come to a shared decision. This juror refused to discuss anything with any other juror.

The reason? Well, when a man or woman does something in secret, it's usually because they're doing something dishonest.

So, this son of a bitch wanted to act our his or her Twelve Angry Men fantasies and play "hero" in sparing a terrorist killer-by-remote-control his true justice. But the bastard (or whore) chose to do it secretly. No impassioned speeches to the other jurors in this version of Twelve Angry Men! No-- that would require some guts, some moral courage. This piece of shit just kept writing down the word "No" and then, coward that he or she is, kept silent about his or her reasons for doing so.

Probably because his or her reasons were wholly unlawful. He or she was not permitted to vote against the death penalty simply because he or she objected to the death penalty on principle-- if that were the case, he or she was required, by law, to announce that fact and disqualify himself or herself from the pool.

He or she kept silent then-- and thus had to keep silent during the actual deliberations.

If this country weren't already lost, the prosecution would seek a mistrial. Brinkema would be investigated for deliberate judicial misconduct. And this prick would be investigated for obstruction of justice and deliberately perpetrating a fraud on the court.

But none of those things will happen, of course. Because liberals get to break the law with impunity. Society has to bow to their delicate consciences.

Only one juror stood between the death penalty and Zacarias Moussaoui and that juror frustrated his colleagues because he never explained his vote, according to the foreman of the jury that sentenced the al-Qaeda operative to life in prison last week.

The foreman, a Northern Virginia math teacher, said in an interview that the panel voted 11 to 1, 10 to 2 and 10 to 2 in favor of the death penalty on three terrorism charges for which Moussaoui was eligible for execution. A unanimous vote on any one of them would have resulted in a death sentence.

The foreman said deliberations reached a critical point on the third day, when the process nearly broke down. Frustrations built because of the repeated 11 to 1 votes on one charge without any dissenting arguments during discussions. All the ballots were anonymous, and the other jurors were relying on the discussions to identify the holdout.

"Wednesday [April 26] was a very intense day," she said. "But there was no yelling. It was as if a heavy cloud of doom had fallen over the deliberation room, and many of us realized that all our beliefs and our conclusions were being vetoed by one person. . . . We tried to discuss the pros and cons. But I would have to say that most of the arguments we heard around the deliberation table were" in favor of the death penalty.

The foreman, who said she voted for the death penalty because the government proved its case, was the second juror to be interviewed by The Washington Post since the trial ended last week. The first juror said he voted for life in prison because he thought that Moussaoui's role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was marginal. He said some other jurors shared his point of view, but he would not reveal the vote. Questioned again after the foreman's comments, the first juror said that he is "happy someone else came forward" and that the 12 jurors "differed in the way we interpreted the things we saw and heard." He declined to discuss the deliberations further.

The foreman said deliberations broke off April 26 when one juror questioned why they should take another vote. "What for?" the foreman remembers the juror saying, "We all know how it is going to come out."

The next day a juror called in sick, and there were no deliberations. That Friday, the jury returned. The foreman told the group that she wanted to send a note to U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema stating that the jury was "not holding deliberations in the true sense of deliberations because the con arguments were not being thrown out on the table so we could investigate them as a group."

She said the jurors did not want any notes sent to the judge, so they decided that the whole group would raise anti-death penalty issues because that way the lone dissenter would not feel isolated or "ganged up on." Deliberations continued, but the foreman said the lone dissenter still did not raise any issues. Three days later, jurors delivered their decision to Brinkema.

The foreman said at the end of the deliberations she felt better about the process but not the outcome.

"I felt frustrated," she said, "because I felt that many of us had been cheated by the anonymity of the 'no' voter. We will never know their reason. We will never be able to hold their reason up to the light and the scrutiny of evidence, fact and law."

...

She has gone back to work after taking a few days off and is still processing the experience. She still wonders why the one dissenter never raised specific objections to sentencing Moussaoui to death.

"We don't know whether we covered all of the cons in the deliberations," she said. "Our sense was this was a done deal for that person and whoever that person is, they were consistent from the first day and their point of view didn't change."

They were wrong not to send a note to Brinkema. Brinkema wouldn't have done anything, but at least we'd have her on record as being opposed to requiring the jurors to do their jobs.

They were lazy and lacked any conviction in doing what was right. They chose to spare a terrorists' life rather than confront a dishonest holdout and argue with him or her, or force him or her to at least make the case for mercy out loud.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

But the Secret Liberal Holdout is guilty of far more than that. He or she is likely guilty of an actual crime, and a crime committed to save a terrorist from justice.

Brinkema may have ordered the name kept a secret, but if it should happen to come into some blogger's email box, it's not going to be a secret for long.

This son of a bitch took advantage of secrecy in the jury room. He or she won't have that secrecy in the real world.

Juror Zero could have explained his or her reasons forthrightly in the jury room. Juror Zero didn't. So now Juror Zero will have to explain those reasons publicly.

Be on notice, Juror Zero. Your secret's not safe, pal.

Thanks to Allah, who notes sardonically once again, "at least we didn't give Moussaoui his martyrdom."

Sorry For the Rant: Whether this son of a bitch broke the law or not, it's too dangerous to out the person. It's dangerous to the juror and the other jurors as well; Al Qaeda would still likely harm any of them.

This person shouldn't have been on the jury and I'll bet dollars to donuts Brinkema knew that.

posted by Ace at 01:04 AM

| Access Comments