Sunday night kicked it off with a live "death metal" concert, courtesy of the new residents of a house a few doors away from mine. In honor of the day, they painted their faces white, brought out the electric guitars and some drums and broadcast the whole screeching, screaming mess through some really, really, really loud amps from their back yard. Feet were finally put down when I saw the sad, crying little face of my friends' two-year-old, who was frightened by the "music" and could not sleep because it was in the back yard behind his, at bedtime. Police called, problem solved.
Earlier on Sunday, I discovered: (a) that it isn't me, it's the DVD player--mine that I now know is widely reported to suck almost immediately after purchase has now died; and (b) my computer actually plays DVDs of movies in a very fabulous way, one that means I may not even buy a new DVD player!
Today was a productive day at work, begun sufficiently early so as not to embarrass myself, and was capped with a Cubs win!!! An exciting one!!!
Tomorrow night: David Sedaris, following sushi at a new place with friends.
Wednesday: a complete day spent in Houston, for witness interviews and a court conference, ending with a fine Mexican dinner with friends.
That's all for now, but before you go, you must read this, which is quite possibly the most interesting transcript I have read. You may have heard of the George Ryan trial--he's the former Governor of Illinois, recently convicted of more counts of criminal wrongdoing than a human being could imagine. His lawyers are challenging the verdict because of a report that the jury foreman chatted about the case briefly and non-substantively with a coffee vendor at her train station. And this is the transcript of the Court's questioning of the potentially errant juror and the coffee man who may derail months of work and millions of taxpayer dollars because he decided to call a radio talk show.
Random thoughts, all . . .
25 April 2006
It's a busy week here at the homestead
Posted by Lisa at 12:10 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ok, so that was a little long and kinda confusing, but I think I get the idea of what was going on. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that the conversation between the jury forewoman and the coffee dude didn't take place. I also find it hard to believe that she wasn't talking to him about this trial all along.
She probably "bragged" to him about being the jury forewoman and talked to him about the trial. Of course, then he was overcome with the desire to be "Mr. Bigtime" and call that radio show and give them inside information.
It's amazing how much people love to present themselves on talk radio and on the internet as "in the know".
Speaking of trials, Lisa, did you see this? The judge in the Moussaoui case won't let the jury have a dictionary to look up the meanings of words.
http://tinyurl.com/zjdvy
Most people see things like this and are "outraged" (ok, usually it's fake outrage). But, I can understand that you can't have people trying to come up with their own meanings to words and phrases. I'm not a lawyer, but my dad was, and I've watched a lot of "Law and Order" so I think I have a handle on this one. hahaha
It is clear by the judge's questioning that Chambers did lie about telling McLaughlin the progress ("148 pages of rules") the jury was making, which would make the rest of her answers suspect. But did she violate Ryan's right to a fair trial? It is possible that Dennis McLaughlin got the information about Chambers role as the foreperson from a source other than her.
That does not mitigate the responsibility Chambers had to keep her mouth shut. I know that it can be difficult to keep quiet. In my profession talking about a prototype while testing can cost a client millions of dollars in lost sales. I have offended people (including family) in the past because of my absolute refusal to discuss any part of my work, including which clients my company works for.
At the very least, as one poster pointed out, it leaves the possibility of Ryan's conviction being overturned on appeal wide open. Pity, because the guy is kind of a bastard.
Enjoy David Sedaris. He read some entries from his journal during his last engagement in Pittsburgh. Some of the material was better than anything he had published.
I agree that it is likely Chambers did talk, then lied about it. I think it's something of a tempest in a teapot, because what harm did it really do vis a vis the trial? Not that I'm excusing her--but just saying I think the non-existent harm is by far outweighed by the cost of starting over again re the trial. (Realizing it's supposed to be about due process, not cost, but I don't think there is a due process violation here).
I had not heard about that Moussawai issue, Jay, but I think the Ryan judge refused to let the jury use a dictionary as well. It is sad how convoluted the jury instructions are in every case, and that more people do not use plain language in them. The jury instructions are one of the most important documents in any case and they should contain definitions for any confusing terms--apparently that didn't happen here.
Sedaris was great--will write more soon!
Post a Comment