Tyco & the Juror

[zenith-nadir]

On Friday the judge sent the jury home early to "cool off" in the Tyco trial. The jury claims one juror is obstinate and refuses to deliberate in good faith. Mark Swartz's and Dennis Kozlowski's lawyers are literally jumping up and down screaming "mistrial".

Why is there only one juror who refuses to deliberate in good faith? Was he payed off? Bribing or threatening jurors has happened a million times before. Why not this time? It's not like Swartz or Kozlowski don't have the $$$.

[Suddenly]

This NY Times article has a reasonable explaination:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/business/29tyco.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1080569363-vZIOTcgKsCeP9ZcMCl4Yyw

(registration required)

One juror - apparently the dissenter, Juror No. 4, a retiree and law school graduate who appeared to make a controversial "O.K." gesture toward the defendants on Friday - wrote a note to the judge lamenting that other jurors had closed their minds to the possibility that the defendants were not guilty.

The jury, which began deliberations on March 18, is expected to try again today. Late last week, members of the jury warned that the atmosphere in the jury room had turned "poisonous," and they accused one juror of refusing to deliberate in "good faith."

Referring to the apparent dissenter, Bruce S. Schaeffer, a tax and securities lawyer who has attended almost every day of the six-month trial for a book he is writing, said: "I don't think she's crazy. She's the only one on the jury who is a lawyer and took criminal law. She knows what mens rea means," he said, citing a legal doctrine that for a defendant to be found guilty of an offense, he must have intended to commit a wrongful act.

"I do not think the prosecution proved criminal intent, and I don't think they proved it to her," Mr. Schaeffer added.

....

On the second day of deliberations, the jury asked the judge a question - which some spectators think was prompted by Juror No. 4 - that showed possible confusion about how to treat criminal intent. "If we find that an action is a crime,'' they asked, "and we find that the defendant, at the time, believes it was not a crime, but that a reasonable person in that situation should have known it was a crime, can a jury find that the defendant has acted with criminal intent?"

The next day, Justice Michael J. Obus of State Supreme Court in Manhattan instructed the jury: "A defendant is not guilty of larceny if he actually believed that he had authority to take the property. That is another way of saying that the defendant acted in good faith, that is, if he actually believed he was authorized to take the property. If that is the case, then he's not guilty of larceny."

Using that definition, Mr. Schaeffer said, "the prosecution argued their way out of the case."

"They repeatedly told the jury that Kozlowski and Swartz had this grand sense of entitlement," he said, and if the two men felt entitled to the payments, then they could not have acted with criminal intent.''

In addition, defendants are presumed innocent of charges, Mr. Fischetti noted, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the crimes charged.

[BobK]

That's certainly a possibility.

I imagine the prosecutor's office will try to look into it.

It may be tough to prove, even if true.

[zenith-nadir]

One juror - apparently the dissenter, Juror No. 4, a retiree and law school graduate who appeared to make a controversial "O.K." gesture toward the defendants on Friday - wrote a note to the judge lamenting that other jurors had closed their minds to the possibility that the defendants were not guilty. Kozlowski and Swartz are as guilty of a white collar crime as they come. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet this single juror feels Kozlowski and Swartz should walk because the "other jurors have closed their minds to the possibility that the defendants are not guilty".

It's bizzare that a law school graduate would dismiss evidence presented and only chose to rely on the other juror's 'feelings' to make his decision.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Kozlowski and Swartz are as guilty of a white collar crime as they come. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet this single juror feels Kozlowski and Swartz should walk because the "other jurors have closed their minds to the possibility that the defendants are not guilty".

It's bizzare that a law school graduate would dismiss evidence presented and only chose to rely on the other juror's 'feelings' to make his decision.

Did you read the post? The evidence is far from overwhelming according to at least one expert, and from what I see from the article I think the expert is correct.

It is simple:

1) They are not guilty if they actually believed that they were entitled to what they took, as they would not have the required "criminal intent" to make their conduct a crime.

2) The prosecutors argued that the defendants had a "grand sense of entitlement" with regard to what was allegedly "stolen."

3) The juror in question has some legal training, and as such sees the HUGE logical problem brought on by points one and two.

The fact is that the prosecutors really screwed up by not only not proving that the defendants didn't think they had a right to what was allegedly stolen, they massively componded that error by suggesting that the defendants did in fact have a sense of entitlement w/r/t to what was allegedly stolen.

This isn't an objective thing, but a subjective one. If someone actually believes they have a right to an item, they are not guilty of theft if they take that item. This applies regardless of how stupid that belief seems to a reasonable person.

When a crime (as most crimes do) requires a level of "criminal intent" or "Mens Rea" as an element, when that element is not proven then there is no crime. You may be right that there is overwhelming evidence as to the other elements of the crimes charged, but without good evidence of the mental state, there is no crime. The prosecutor's "grand sense of entitlement" strategy was a poor choice as it in a technical sense in fact was an argument against guilt. They happened to run into a juror that is actually following the law. Whoops.

[Mr Manifesto]

Would it be derailing to ask, what do people think of mandatory civics/legal lessons for all adult citizens?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Did you read the post? The evidence is far from overwhelming according to at least one expert, and from what I see from the article I think the expert is correct. I look at this way. All the other jurors are not on this single juror's side. So does this single juror know that the "evidence is far from overwhelming" or is the entire remainder of the jury so STUPID they were conned by the prosecution's overwhelming lack of evidence?

[Tmy]

"law degree" means the guy is too stupid to pass the bar.

There is nothingmore annoying than someone with a little legal training. Thats like having an undergrad pysche major who thinks hes Freud. I can picture this guy now. Retired, went to law school for kicks, probably hated by his classmates for being a pompous windbag. Im sure the jury feels the same.

[hgc]

On a related note, one of those idiots that are passed off as "experts" on the talk shows was complaining along the lines of, "what does it say about the state of our legal system when one juror can derail the whole process ...?"

Uh, what's the problem? Don't like that it takes a unanimous jury to convict? Not enough convictions happening for your taste? How on Earth would you change the system to correct the perceived problem?

I don't see a systemic problem here. If the jury is hung, then re-try the case. End of story.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I look at this way. All the other jurors are not on this single juror's side. So does this single juror know that the "evidence is far from overwhelming" or is the entire remainder of the jury so STUPID they were conned by the prosecution's overwhelming lack of evidence?

It appears from the article that the majority of jurors are not paying attention to the details of the law, or perhaps simply to not care for it. This is not unusual, jurors often zone out during the jury instructions.

The lone dissenting juror has some legal training and is aware of the details. It appears from the comments that the juror wants to discuss the mental state issue and the other jurors are refusing to even consider it for some reason. It could be that they don't care, it could be they are convinced the mental state exists. However, when the prosecution's argument centers arount the defendants' "sense of entitlement" it would seem obvious that the issue at least merits some discussion.

I think your manufacture of a false dichotomy here is a poor tactic, as is the implicit claim that I am claiming the jury is stupid. Perhaps I should join you in brainless bombast and suggest you advocate lawless behaviour on the part of juries, that juries should ignore all law and just find whomever displeases them guilty of a crime even if the evidence is there. That or perhaps that you would declare two plus two to be five if you could get 11 out of 12 votes for it, even if the lone dissent is the only one with mathematical training.

However, that isn't my style...


What is in issue is whether what happened meets the definition of a crime. Part of that definition is a mental state, and the prosecution seems to have not done a good job in proving that, and if fact it appears the prosecution has unwittingly argued against it. There is one juror that seems to at least want to discuss this possibility, and that juror (I would guess) is a bit ticked that the rest of the jury is ignoring the law in that they won't consider or discuss the mental state. There is a real possibility that this juror simply wants to deliberate on this issue before finding guilt, and that perhaps the evidence exists for such a conviction.

However, since most people in this country are dangerously clueless as to how the legal system works, most people develop opinions based on media reports that are rarely accurate and usually range from innocently misleading to deliberately manipulative. They then blame the system when their expectations obtained by shaky media reports are not met, and scream about "stupid jurors," "unethical lying lawyers" or perhaps "crooked judges" when the result is actually quite reasonable but for the poor media analysis.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
"law degree" means the guy is too stupid to pass the bar. Just not true. Many people get a law degree with no intention of being a lawyer. A law degree is technically a doctorate and is sometimes but not always recognized as such, and all in all is a very good education for most any purpose.

Then there are people that start out as lawyers, see how hard a dollar it can be, and wind up in some other field.

There is nothingmore annoying than someone with a little legal training. Thats like having an undergrad pysche major who thinks hes Freud. I can picture this guy now. Retired, went to law school for kicks, probably hated by his classmates for being a pompous windbag. Im sure the jury feels the same.

Yeah. The jury wants to quit worrying about this "law" nonsense and convict already. Let's ignore this other juror because he thinks he's so smart going on about "mental states" and other nonsense. He's one of those lawyers that tries to keep us from stringing up everyone we just know is no good...

Real comforting unless you happen to be a member of some minority group, be it racial, religious or otherwise. Then you may decide mob rule isn't all it is cracked up to be.

[Tmy]

I dont think the jury is ignnoring the law. The "should have known" question asked was interesting.

I havent followedteh trial but Im wondering how these Tyco guys spend millions on birthday parties and not realize it was some sort of missapropriation. The jury is free to question the good faith of the Tyco guys.

Just cause you believe the govt isnt entitled to income taxes doesnt mean your sheilded from tax evasion charges.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Suddenly
It appears from the article that the majority of jurors are not paying attention to the details of the law, or perhaps simply to not care for it. This is not unusual, jurors often zone out during the jury instructions.I am not attacking you, but how the hell does the author of the article "know" jurors are not paying attention to the details of the law? Is the author in the jury room? Has he asked the jurors? Wouldn't interviewing active jurors for his story cause a mistrial? Perhaps he knows nothing at all and is just trying to "sell" his spin.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think the jury is ignnoring the law. The "should have known" question asked was interesting.

I havent followedteh trial but Im wondering how these Tyco guys spend millions on birthday parties and not realize it was some sort of missapropriation. The jury is free to question the good faith of the Tyco guys. That's the whole point, we would find such a belief unreasonable, but that isn't the standard. The question is what they believed, to be answered from available evidence concerning the circumstances. Throw into the mix the prosecution for some reason arguing for the exisence of "a sense of entitlement" and it can get very gray very quickly.

Just cause you believe the govt isnt entitled to income taxes doesnt mean your sheilded from tax evasion charges.

Sorry. If the jury finds (the government can't prove otherwise) you really believe the income tax is illegal, the law is that you are cleared of all criminal charges.

You can still be made, via a civil suit, to pay any taxes owed plus interest and penalties.

Same in this case. These defendants could be found liable in a civil proceeding for what they took even if the jury did not convict in this criminal case.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I am not attacking you, but how the hell does the author of the article "know" jurors are not paying attention to the details of the law? Is the author in the jury room? Has he asked the jurors? Wouldn't interviewing active jurors for his story cause a mistrial? Perhaps he knows nothing at all and is just trying to "sell" his spin.

You are adding an element of certainty that does not exist. That is how the situation appeared to me from reading the article. I make no guarantees as to that fact, but my reasoning is thus:

From the available evidence, the notes to the judge from the jury it can be established to a reasonable degree that the other jusrors are refusing to discuss the mental state issue. This leaves what appear to be three possibilities.

1) The other jurors are refusing to discuss mental state because they just don't care about the legal point or misunderstand it.

2) The other jurors are refusing to discuss mental state because they believe the evidence is so overwhelming that it is beyond discussion.

3) Some combination of the above.

I would guess that 3 is most likely, simply by the numbers. The real question is whether there is more 1 or 2.

I would suggest that it is reasonable to assert that the longer the standoff occurs, the more the other jurors are leaning towards (1) than (2). This is because if most (or all) found it obvious within the legal standard, that they would break down and discuss the matter, as refusing to explain what you believe to be obvious is mainly a time saving measure and a strange thing to refuse to do just out of spite.

However, if you just don't care about the mental state, there would be no breaking down no matter how long it takes.

[zenith-nadir]

I think "lawyer" Juror No. 4, decided that the other "non-lawyer" jurors were not as 'qualified' as she is to make 'legal' decisions. I bet she played this card to the hilt and has made the other juror's lives hell in the juryroom with her 'superior' legal knowledge. Hence the 'poisoned' atmosphere letter last week. The other 11 jurors have pretty well reached a conclusion, yet cannot move on it because of Juror No. 4.

I could be wrong, I could be right. All I know is it is 1 juror against 11 jurors, if her position is so cut and dry why does it seem that no other juror is on Juror No. 4's side. Because she is right?, or because she may be power-trippin?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I think "lawyer" Juror No. 4, decided that the other "non-lawyer" jurors were not as 'qualified' as she is to make 'legal' decisions. I bet she played this card to the hilt and has made the other juror's lives hell in the juryroom with her 'superior' legal knowledge. Hence the 'poisoned' atmosphere letter last week. The other 11 jurors have pretty well reached a conclusion, yet cannot move on it because of Juror No. 4. All reasonable except for one unknown: whether Juror 4 is being a jerk or whether the other 11 are a bunch of oversensitive yahoo class warriors that want to stick it to the man and f*ck the law and this smartypants that wants to spoil their fun. Well, maybe not exactly that, but you get the picture. I'm sure there is resentment and name calling, but given the common juror dynamic and the tendancy for people to become emotionally invested and remember things oddly consistent with their position while forgetting adverse information, we will never really know who really is the cause of such a problem.

I could be wrong, I could be right. All I know is it is 1 juror against 11 jurors, if her position is so cut and dry why does it seem that no other juror is on Juror No. 4's side. Because she is right?, or because she may be power-trippin?

Or that they are resentful and refuse to consider her suggestions based on who she is, or a number of other possibilities.

However, given what I see, and putting together the mental state issue with the prosecutors repeated claims of "a sense of entitlement" I can see why someone with legal training sees a large problem that perhaps someone less familiar with the system would not see. From there it is a short leap to the resentment you suggest, especially if Juror 4 is less than delicate about the matter and/or the others just do not like lawyers and so on into oblivion.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What about the principle that ignorance doesn't negate the power of law?

[edit] And while I'm at it, this entire argument is stupid. Obviously all thieves believe they are more entitled to the things they steal than the people they steal from - otherwise they wouldn't take the stuff in the first place. There is a difference between a "feeling of entitlement" and the knowledge that one is actually entitled to something under existing legal principles and the concept of fairness.

[evil sutko]

Hmmm. Mixed feelings on this case.

I agree with Suddenly's viewpoint that the prosecution fumbled badly by arguing that the defendants had a sense of entitlement.

But on the other hand, one brave lawyer fighting against the bloodthirsty mob sounds a little too romantic to be true.

I think it's very possible that the rest of the jurors simply ignored the fact that the prosecution hamstringed itself. Maybe they didn't buy the entire "sense of entitlement" argument and thought the defendants were just plain greedy instead.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by evil sutko
Hmmm. Mixed feelings on this case.

I agree with Suddenly's viewpoint that the prosecution fumbled badly by arguing that the defendants had a sense of entitlement.

But on the other hand, one brave lawyer fighting against the bloodthirsty mob sounds a little too romantic to be true.

I think it's very possible that the rest of the jurors simply ignored the fact that the prosecution hamstringed itself. Maybe they didn't buy the entire "sense of entitlement" argument and thought the defendants were just plain greedy instead.

I would find it a little bit ironic if the jury would convict because they didn't believe the prosecution.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What about the principle that ignorance doesn't negate the power of law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse? Usually, with some exceptions, the tax code being foremost.

What is at issue here is not whether this person knows that "stealing is wrong" but whether someone knows what they are taking doesn't belong to him/her. Otherwise if you ever picked up the wrong bag at the gym or the like you would be guilty of larceny.

[edit] And while I'm at it, this entire argument is stupid. Obviously all thieves believe they are more entitled to the things they steal than the people they steal from - otherwise they wouldn't take the stuff in the first place. There is a difference between a "feeling of entitlement" and the knowledge that one is actually entitled to something under existing legal principles and the concept of fairness.

Allow me to doubt your categorical observation as to the motivation of theives. Some take stuff because they just want money for drugs and the jones overrides any morality based guilt. Happens every now and then.

Then again maybe it is stupid to make a issue over the concept of entitlement when considering something like an alleged unauthorized bonus since it clearly doesn't apply to somebody boosting a stereo from Wal-Mart. I don't see it myself, but maybe I'm taking too much of a legalistic view of things.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

She's the only one on the jury who is a lawyer and took criminal law. She knows what mens rea means," he said, citing a legal doctrine that for a defendant to be found guilty of an offense, he must have intended to commit a wrongful act.

Q 4 Suddenly:

Don't you think it was a mistake for the prosecution to allow someone like that on the jury? Shouldn't they have used one of their "challenges" (I can't think of what they are called)?

Does each side get these "challenges" in every trial, or just sometimes?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by evil sutko
Hmmm. Mixed feelings on this case.

I agree with Suddenly's viewpoint that the prosecution fumbled badly by arguing that the defendants had a sense of entitlement.

But on the other hand, one brave lawyer fighting against the bloodthirsty mob sounds a little too romantic to be true.

I think it's very possible that the rest of the jurors simply ignored the fact that the prosecution hamstringed itself. Maybe they didn't buy the entire "sense of entitlement" argument and thought the defendants were just plain greedy instead.

Maybe the jurors took the view that having a "sense of entitlement" doesn't amount to a genuine and justified belief that what you are taking belongs to you.

After all, from what I have read about the case, the following points do not support the defendants' position:

1. The is no record, including board meeting minutes (!!!) of any awards to the sum taken by the defendants.

2. The seemingly contrived calculation of the payments as claimed by the defendants; in order to prove the payments represented genuine pre-agreed entitlements, one of the defendants presented the jury with a very confusing and overly complex calculation. It simply didn't pass muster in terms of credibility of the witness and the evidence.



Also a couple of additional posers:

1. Why, if this rogue juror is so well versed on legal practice, was she communicaitng with the defendants?

2. While it is the job of the jury to deliberte on the legal niceties of a case, surely this is done with the aid of the direction of the Judge.

3. Ouside the legalities of the case, it is the jury's job to deliberate on the credibility of the evidence and witnesses and use common sense (not legal judgement) to test against a benchmark of "reasonable doubt" whether the case is proven or not. Even the most experienced lawyer has no inherent advantage in this central task of a jury.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Drooper
Also a couple of additional posers:

1. Why, if this rogue juror is so well versed on legal practice, was she communicaitng with the defendants?

2. While it is the job of the jury to deliberte on the legal niceties of a case, surely this is done with the aid of the direction of the Judge.

3. Ouside the legalities of the case, it is the jury's job to deliberate on the credibility of the evidence and witnesses and use common sense (not legal judgement) to test against a benchmark of "reasonable doubt" whether the case is proven or not. Even the most experienced lawyer has no inherent advantage in this central task of a jury.


That's my point. On one hand Juror #4 is suppose to be a lawyer, but on the other hand she motioned to the defence table and is poisoning the deliberations with her grandstanding. I say she is power-trippin and unstable rather than a canny legal mind.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Q 4 Suddenly:

Don't you think it was a mistake for the prosecution to allow someone like that on the jury? Shouldn't they have used one of their "challenges" (I can't think of what they are called)?

Does each side get these "challenges" in every trial, or just sometimes?

As far as I know in every jury trial both sides get to strike a set number of jurors. Here, the state strikes 2 and the defense strikes 6. I'm not aware of the details in New York.

Anytime someone with legal training gets on a jury at least one of the sides made a big mistake. Who exactly depends on the details, but having a lawyer on a jury screws up the usual jury dynamic in that often the rest of the jury defers to the lawyer. There are also situations (especially when you are a defense lawyer that gets a lot of hopeless cases) where you just don't want the jury to really apply the law. So having a lawyer is usually bad. However, a lawyer also is more likely to be aware of the power of jury nullification, so if the lawyer seems liberal, the defendant sympathetic, and the charge unjust, keeping a lawyer may be a good idea for the defense, but not for the state.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Drooper


Maybe the jurors took the view that having a "sense of entitlement" doesn't amount to a genuine and justified belief that what you are taking belongs to you.

After all, from what I have read about the case, the following points do not support the defendants' position:

1. The is no record, including board meeting minutes (!!!) of any awards to the sum taken by the defendants.

2. The seemingly contrived calculation of the payments as claimed by the defendants; in order to prove the payments represented genuine pre-agreed entitlements, one of the defendants presented the jury with a very confusing and overly complex calculation. It simply didn't pass muster in terms of credibility of the witness and the evidence.



Also a couple of additional posers:

1. Why, if this rogue juror is so well versed on legal practice, was she communicaitng with the defendants? Being well versed doesn't make her not an idiot in other ways.

2. While it is the job of the jury to deliberte on the legal niceties of a case, surely this is done with the aid of the direction of the Judge. With "jury instructions" which usually happen at the end of the trial and are read by the judge all at once. These aren't always in plain english either. I usually assume the jury will ignore these so any important points of law I want to get across I mention in closing over and over.

The jury can ask questions of the judge while deliberating, and the judge may answer on the record. However, the judge is very careful in this regard as more convictions get tossed for bad jury instructions or contact than for any other reason. It's not like the judge can go back to the jury room and patiently explain the law. It has to be done on the record through official and formal means that pass muster under applicable case law. As a result confusion is the rule and not the exception any time there is a difficult legal concept involved.

3. Ouside the legalities of the case, it is the jury's job to deliberate on the credibility of the evidence and witnesses and use common sense (not legal judgement) to test against a benchmark of "reasonable doubt" whether the case is proven or not. Even the most experienced lawyer has no inherent advantage in this central task of a jury.

Depends on how many jury trials the lawyer has been through, and how familiar she is with tricks used by either side to try to make a witness seem more credible than that witness really is. A lawyer familiar with the tricks of the trade w/r/t preparing a witness is going to see through more smokescreens than someone who isn't. She also will be able to better read between the lines when there is a bench conference in the middle of someone's testimony or when a witness uses a particular phrasing, and is in a better position to understand the jury instructions. The lawyer will spend less time confused about what is happening and more time looking for tell tale signs that reveal what really is going on beyond all the lawyer bullsh*t that confuses someone that hasn't seen it before.

A lawyer on a jury can really screw up a case, and this one isn't an exception. My main curiousity is how the heck she got on there in the first place.