Last week, as you no doubt recall, Sheila Hill's attorney, Victor Vital, requested a new trial or evidentiary hearing based upon possible jury misconduct preceding all those guilty verdicts in the Dallas City Hall federal corruption trial. Now we know how U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn will proceed -- by dismissing two of the three claims (those involving a newspaper found in the jury room and D'Angelo Lee's claim that a friend of his said a juror gave opinions about the case during the trial), and by interviewing in private Nedra Frazier, the juror Sam interviewed only hours after she and the other jurors found Don Hill and his four co-defendants guilty of 23 of the 29 charges against them. Lynn will then provide a transcript to counsel. A copy of yesterday's order follows.
Jury Misconduct Order
The explanation:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2009-11-12/news/federal-judge-barbara-lynn-and-the-observer-go-toe-to-toe-over-a-vague-legal-principle-known-as-the-first-amendment/
You guys really should stop beating up on Sam. From what I read on the Court doc, The court asked DO for its source material, DO said No thanks, and the court said OK, we'll talk to the juror involved. If the Feds don't have a problem with it, what is y'all's problem? News reporting is like making sausage, it tastes good but you really don't want to know what goes into it.
Hey sam i dont trust you.....
Hey Sam, if it looks like shit and smells like shit......
i think many have been known to kick crotches for much less than "facts"
@Sam: "Reality suggests otherwise?" Really? Then why are you refusing to turn over your tapes? Tapes that you would not hesitate to play for one and for all if it suited your purposes?
As for kicking you in the crotch "without the facts..." WHAT facts? All we have to go by is your condescending "trust me, I wouldn't do that" reply.
"I bet some of these folks would even throw in a good spanking if you like. ;) "
Be sure to tape it... :)
I�m going to pretend like some of you aren�t making wild accusations and kicking me in the crotch without all the facts.
*********
Now see, that would cost you some serious bucks if you consulted one of the "ladies" who advertise on the back pages. Here at Unfair Park, you can get it for free! I bet some of these folks would even throw in a good spanking if you like. ;)
OK, folks. I�m going to pretend like some of you aren�t making wild accusations and kicking me in the crotch without all the facts.
I�m going to pretend because reality suggests otherwise.
That is a huge question. Why would Dallas Observer refuse to turn over the tape in the case?
The Dallas Observer has released audio before to validate their stories (i.e. the Jerry Allen quotes regarding no worries about being held accountable for a failed convention center hotel as he would be out of office by then).
"Just how accurate IS Sam's story?"
Good question.
Interesting how Sam Merten declined to turn the tapes over to the judge. You're not protecting an anonymous source, knuckleheads, so you can't hide behind the First Amendment. Reuters actually encourages its journalists to tape interviews to protect themselves from libel claims.
The judge asked for the tape to verify the accuracy of the story - i.e., whether what Sam wrote is actually what the juror said. But Sam doesn't want to produce the tape. Just how accurate IS Sam's story?
so the moral of the story is...sam makes a good fanboy and loses in the end?
How do you know they already don't? :)
Speaking of smutty ads, your friends at the DMN reported that events like the Super Bowl and NBA All Star games bring 50,000-100,000 prostitutes to town. Might I suggest that the Observer raise its adverting rates during that time period?
Oh, don't blame Sam. How was he supposed to know that people actually read the Observer and not just the smutty ads at the back?
poor sam....you should give hill's 20 bucks back
Love that footnote! "Some vague constitutional protection unknown to this Court." I'm just guessing here, of course - out on the proverbial limb and flying without a net - but I'm thinking maybe it might could have been, perhaps, the First Amendment?
Yes, lets not hold the person who said the words accountable, lets blame the person who reported it.
Sam didnt screw this up, cut the guy some freaking slack. If worse comes to worse, the juror will get a wrist slapping for talking. Sam was doing what any other journo would do in this case, interview a juror post-trial about the behind the scenes. The guilty defendents basically are grasping at straws to keep their butts out of the fire accordingly and will try any desperate move to keep that from occuring. Thats all this is: Idiots attempting to keep from taking their punishment accordingly.
Sam Merten did not put words in the juror's mouth, nor did he tie her up and force her to cooperate with the interview. The juror chose to engage with Sam, and she also chose to answer the questions in whatever way that she did.
However, it doesn't take away from the fact that Sam was trying his best to be a typical investigative journalist, annoyingly pressing and pushing the juror about the fax machine business.
Write Comment
Email to Friend
Print Article
