1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NY cops accused of rape are acquitted

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, May 26, 2011.

  1. You have to be fucking kidding me!!!!


    I hope we find out how the jury acquitted these guys .. Maybe they didn't rape that woman, but I guaran-fucking-tee the one officer took advantage of that woman and engaged in sex with her.

    The fact they returned to her aprartment w.o telling dispatchers where they were going or where they were raises a LOT of red flags.

    I feel for this woman.
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not surprised after I saw the stories yesterday that the jurors were asking the judge for off the wall things, including asking for written explanations of the counts (they had already been told twice they were only allowed oral instructions, yet asked again), and asking the judge if "testimony counts as fact."

    I posted the last time I was on jury duty. I am sure NYC is not unique in this regard, but people get picked for jury duty and they lose all common sense. I sat on a civil case, not criminal, but it was such a no-brainer verdict. I thought we'd walk in, talk for 3 minutes and send the verdict back.

    But once we got into the juror's room, we had a few people who were complete idiots, one guy trying to split the verdict to give the black guy something (he was!) and we had a couple of people who suddenly fancied themselves legal experts and wanted to get a copy of the legal code (the judge said we couldn't have it) so they could do their own police work and come up with a verdict. I ended up imposing myself on the room, and sort of steering everyone, because I had a nightmare of sitting there for 6 days deliberating something that should have taken absolutely no deliberation. Thankfully, we were out of there that day.

    I am not surprised when jurors do anything anymore. At least from what was tried in the media, this should have been a one hour deliberation, with these guys going away for a long time. It sucks.
  3. mrbio

    mrbio Member

    Interesting insight thanks Ragu. This is almost as astonishing as when the Steffi Graf fanatic got off without a night in jail for attempted murder of stabbing Monica Seles. He wasn't a threat to do it again, said the German judge. Unbelievable.
  4. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    In my first job out of law school, our firm represented a Fortune 100 company for all of their employment cases in a region. If a case was within a certain number of days before the trial, we were required to bring in a mock jury. We'd use the videotaped deposition testimony of the key witnesses and have two lawyers from our firm makes opening and closing statements.

    Watching the "juries" deliberate was unreal. The biases which they bring to the table, the facts which they assume, the crazy conclusions which they reach. Scary.
  5. Care Bear

    Care Bear Guest

    This story contains some ridiculous details. One of the officers stated that he sang Bon Jovi verses to her? WTF? Why wasn't he charged for that?


    The NYDN is reporting that both officers were fired. Good. Not enough, but good.
  6. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    Cases like this bring to mind why so many prosecutors are willing to settle ahead of time, even if it means reduced jail sentences.

    Adam Carolla once argued that you should just use a lie detector for every case. Yes, you'd get 1 to 10 percent of cases wrong. However, how many do you think the legal system is either punting on or screwing up as is?
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Victim releases a statement:


    Terrible ordeal. She deserved better.
  8. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    How the jury could decide that the victim really wanted cops to come back 3 times AND FAKE A 911 CALL, simply because she was drunk is ridiculous. Maybe if she alleged she had just been attacked/groped and feared for her safety. But she was just a drunk. This is going to be an OJ situation where the victim will have to get some retribution with civil damages and forget about the unbelievable criminal jury verdict. [Disclaimer, of course I did not get to watch the victim's testimony.]
  9. beardpuller

    beardpuller Active Member

    Many years ago, I was on a jury in a murder case. The defendant wasn't charged with actually killing the guy, but with being part of the setup that lured the guy to his death. Except, the one witness the prosecution presented, who also was involved in the setup but got immunity, recalled key facts absolutely wrong, according to the physical evidence.
    There were a bunch of sidebar conferences, at which I inferred the judge was disallowing stuff the prosecution wanted us to hear, because the prosecution basically didn't put on a case and rested after the one witness.
    I thought, "great, I'll be home for dinner."

    I was, a few days later, after many hours of deliberation.
    Two jurors thought that since the police had gone to all the trouble to charge the guy, we should convict him of something, just for the heck of it.
    Another -- the real holdup -- didn't like the way the defendant looked at her during the trial, she said. It was a really evil look!
    The foreman was way more patient than I was, and he went through every piece of evidence with this woman and finally got her to concede that we couldn't convict. If he hadn't, I might still be in that room.
  10. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    I will say that in my 21 years experience have found jurors to for the vast majority of the time taken their duties seriously and extremely diligently. However, jurors come to a case with their experiences, which means bias and predeterminations in many ways. Arbitrators (private decisions makers who get paid huge $$) though, the vast majority of the time seem to be less emotional and more likely to determine things based on the evidence presented.
  11. westcoastvol

    westcoastvol Active Member

    This part was the cover of the Post today:

    "Hearing that verdict brought me to my knees."
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page