PDA

View Full Version : Is using a psychic in court "jury tampering"?


Questioninggeller
25th June 2007, 01:07 PM
PAPER: The Herald (Glasgow)
DATE: September 14, 2005
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 17
LENGTH: 660 words
HEADLINE: The psychic with a bad memory who prompted a mass superstition
BYLINE: IAN BELL
HIGHLIGHT:
HOGWASH: Patricia Arquette as Allison DuBois in Medium.
BODY:

According to the publicity, Allison DuBois is a real person.

This gives her an advantage overmost of the characters in Medium, but it also raises troubling questions.
...
As a professional courtesy, now and then I read the American TV critics.

Apparently they think very highly of Medium. They believe that Patricia Arquette (as DuBois) is a fine actress (true) who brings an emotional resonance to the role of the working mum, ormom, grown accustomed to waking up with her husband's dead father in the bed beside her.

The hacks also seem to find nothing peculiar in the idea of a woman who dreams with prescient accuracy of necrophiliac serial-killers.

After as much higher education as I could manage, I have only one word at my disposal for that revelation: what?

No, I'm mistaken. Here comes anotherword, an Americanism: "Normalised."

What is it about the Goddrenched culture of the United States that makes Allison's righteous jury-tampering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering) seem not only heroic but plausible?

When did any of this begin to seem normal? Last night, DuBois was using her psychic smarts to help the DA in his efforts to find 12 people happy to send Mr Psycho to the chair. She had no quibbles over electrocution. Her only problem was the reliability of her "gift".

This viewer's problem with Ms DuBois, real and fictional, has something to do with the world view inherent in Medium. Death, God and assorted afterlives can be accepted as stock themes of western culture. But doesn't a psychic, even "a psychic with a bad memory", presume a sort of mass, witless superstition?

The God-fearing among you can deal with obvious blasphemy. In my world, there is a real and growing problem caused by the bizarre things ordinary Americans are, apparently, prepared to believe.
...


Source: Full article for purchase (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/smgpubs/access/895733921.html?did=895733921&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Sep+14%2C+2005&author=IAN+BELL&pub=The+Herald&desc=The+psychic+with+a+bad+memory+who+prompted+a+ mass+superstition)

MelBrooksfan
25th June 2007, 01:09 PM
No, but it ought to be perjury.

Rasmus55
25th June 2007, 02:04 PM
The use of a jury consultant is not jury tampering. Each jurisdiction will have specific elements defining the crime of jury tampering. Using a consultant to select which potential jurors may be more helpful to your case would not qualify unless the consultant actually engaged in those prohibited elements. Use of jury consultant's, however, is also regulated in some jurisdictions. I've even heard of places where the practice is banned outright. The most common type of consultant will usually have a phd in psychology. The consultant will try to prepare crafty questions to elicit responses from the potential juror designed to guage the subject's views on matters critical to the underlying factual basis for that side's (or the other's) case. I'm not aware of a bar against "mediumship" in jury consulting in any jurisdiction, although I caution you not to rely upon that as I have not researched the issue extensively. It would seem to me, however, that if any money actually flowed to the medium from a state agency for such a service then tax payer money was misappropriated.