those things can be controlled or at least laid out in advance. The unknown variable in every trial is the secret minds of the jurors: their belief systems, their values, and their O B J E C T I O N !
3 9
mind-sets. These things can’t be controlled, but they can be dealt with through proper preparation.
This country’s jury system is under attack as never before, largely because the juror mind-set has been left mostly unexplored and un-challenged. Many recent cases have resulted in downright shocking verdicts that have left veteran trial watchers and legal analysts shaking their heads in disbelief. But it was events surrounding jurors in three high-profile trials in 2004 that showed, without question, that the jury-selection process and the juror oath as it stands today are simply not working. Chappell Hartridge—the media-obsessed juror in the Martha Stewart trial—the allegedly disagreeable “Juror Number 4” in the Tyco mistrial, and the so-called stealth jurors attempting to fake their way into the jury box in the Scott Peterson case all caused varying degrees of chaos in the courtroom because of their confounding behavior and their unexplored mind-sets.
J U R O R S W H O L O A T H E
T H E O A T H
Hear out my argument and consider the following three examples of a jury system in peril:
E X H I B I T A :
I T ’ S A L L A B O U T M E !
In the Martha Stewart case, everybody pointed the finger but nobody knew exactly whom rightfully to blame for the fact that Chappell Hartridge, Juror Number 8, had gotten on the jury in the first place.
From what I can tell based on court filings, he withheld information during jury selection. The defense claimed that Hartridge lied about his arrest record on a questionnaire when he said he had never been in court other than for a minor traffic violation. Did he forget he’d been arrested for assaulting a woman he lived with? This could have been 4 0
N A N C Y G R A C E
remedied during voir dire, which coincidentally means “to speak the truth,” but Hartridge never murmured a word. Defense lawyer Robert Morvillo said Hartridge “dishonestly suppressed information concerning a gender-related incident . . . to be able to sit in judgment of a well-known and highly successful woman in a case alleging false statements.”
Hartridge also allegedly failed to disclose on his jury questionnaire that he had been sued three times. The defense filing stated that civil judgments had been entered against him in each case. Hartridge’s alleged juror misconduct alone wasn’t enough for the trial judge to grant Stewart’s request for a new trial. The reality is that, ironically, if the defense had known that Hartridge had been charged with a crime, they probably would have insisted he stay on the jury (“Here’s a guy who’s been accused of wrongdoing before—he’ll side with Martha! We love him!”). The whole thing backfired. If anyone had wanted him off the jury, most likely it would have been the state.
In addition to lying during the jury oath, evidence suggests that Hartridge may have been guilty of juror greed as well. On the day of Martha Stewart’s guilty verdict, he was all about justice, publicly declaring he believed the decision was “a victory for the little guys.” Producers from every network scrambled to get him for their nightly news programs, eager to hear whatever insights he might have to offer about the deliberations. Not surprisingly, he disappeared from his impromptu press conference on the courthouse steps and reemerged soon afterward on NBC’s myriad news outlets. He showed up at all hours of the day and night in the aftermath of the verdict on Dateline NBC, the Today show, and on MSNBC. But Hartridge’s own greed preempted his multimedia moment. Dominick Dunne reported in Vanity Fair that at least one other show on another network dropped him from their lineup when he demanded money and a limousine for his appearance. Court documents filed by
3 9
mind-sets. These things can’t be controlled, but they can be dealt with through proper preparation.
This country’s jury system is under attack as never before, largely because the juror mind-set has been left mostly unexplored and un-challenged. Many recent cases have resulted in downright shocking verdicts that have left veteran trial watchers and legal analysts shaking their heads in disbelief. But it was events surrounding jurors in three high-profile trials in 2004 that showed, without question, that the jury-selection process and the juror oath as it stands today are simply not working. Chappell Hartridge—the media-obsessed juror in the Martha Stewart trial—the allegedly disagreeable “Juror Number 4” in the Tyco mistrial, and the so-called stealth jurors attempting to fake their way into the jury box in the Scott Peterson case all caused varying degrees of chaos in the courtroom because of their confounding behavior and their unexplored mind-sets.
J U R O R S W H O L O A T H E
T H E O A T H
Hear out my argument and consider the following three examples of a jury system in peril:
E X H I B I T A :
I T ’ S A L L A B O U T M E !
In the Martha Stewart case, everybody pointed the finger but nobody knew exactly whom rightfully to blame for the fact that Chappell Hartridge, Juror Number 8, had gotten on the jury in the first place.
From what I can tell based on court filings, he withheld information during jury selection. The defense claimed that Hartridge lied about his arrest record on a questionnaire when he said he had never been in court other than for a minor traffic violation. Did he forget he’d been arrested for assaulting a woman he lived with? This could have been 4 0
N A N C Y G R A C E
remedied during voir dire, which coincidentally means “to speak the truth,” but Hartridge never murmured a word. Defense lawyer Robert Morvillo said Hartridge “dishonestly suppressed information concerning a gender-related incident . . . to be able to sit in judgment of a well-known and highly successful woman in a case alleging false statements.”
Hartridge also allegedly failed to disclose on his jury questionnaire that he had been sued three times. The defense filing stated that civil judgments had been entered against him in each case. Hartridge’s alleged juror misconduct alone wasn’t enough for the trial judge to grant Stewart’s request for a new trial. The reality is that, ironically, if the defense had known that Hartridge had been charged with a crime, they probably would have insisted he stay on the jury (“Here’s a guy who’s been accused of wrongdoing before—he’ll side with Martha! We love him!”). The whole thing backfired. If anyone had wanted him off the jury, most likely it would have been the state.
In addition to lying during the jury oath, evidence suggests that Hartridge may have been guilty of juror greed as well. On the day of Martha Stewart’s guilty verdict, he was all about justice, publicly declaring he believed the decision was “a victory for the little guys.” Producers from every network scrambled to get him for their nightly news programs, eager to hear whatever insights he might have to offer about the deliberations. Not surprisingly, he disappeared from his impromptu press conference on the courthouse steps and reemerged soon afterward on NBC’s myriad news outlets. He showed up at all hours of the day and night in the aftermath of the verdict on Dateline NBC, the Today show, and on MSNBC. But Hartridge’s own greed preempted his multimedia moment. Dominick Dunne reported in Vanity Fair that at least one other show on another network dropped him from their lineup when he demanded money and a limousine for his appearance. Court documents filed by
Similar Books
