In Case You've Wondered

My blog is where my wandering thoughts are interspersed with stuff I made up. So, if while reading you find yourself confused about the context, don't feel alone. I get confused, too.

If you're here for the stories, I started another blog:

One other thing: sometimes I write words you refuse to use in front of children, or polite company, unless you have a flat tire, or hit your thumb with a hammer.

I don't use them to offend; I use them to embellish.

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

This I'll Keep and Eye On

Judge Jackson called jurors from the trial of Stone back for questioning about misconduct. Of the 11 out of fourteen jurors that showed up, only two were questioned, which is what the report stated was all allowed by the judge. She asked the questions. The defense, and prosecution, attorneys didn't ask any questions, although they did get to choose the two jurors for questioning.

I wonder why the judge didn't allow all the jurors to be questioned? That, and why the other three weren't there? Maybe those questions will be answered in the future.

I did find that the defense attorneys not asking questions as interesting. In my opinion, this is all theater, they know the judge will lose in appeals, and at worst, Stone will be tried again. They've already won this bout, the prosecutors know this, and the judge is playing CYA.


  1. I am thinking that maybe the right to Q&A a jury varies from state to state to Federal District?
    I have seen a jury polled after a verdict given to assure there was a unanimous verdict...Both attorneys were involved, but it was the only question asked (allowed) here in Texas.
    I think it was a very unusual concept; asking jurors to return and answer questions, but then, I am not a lawyer.

    1. I was on a jury polled by the judge after our stalemate. We were asked one by one if that was our opinion, and the trial was over, but that was Texas criminal jury.

      I think the judge had no choice to ask, although their effort seemed half-hearted. With the evidence of the foreman's expounding on Facebook, the evidence allowed only one reaction, which should have been a mistrial and the defendant allowed a new trial.