Judge ... tells jurors they got verdict wrong

I can't imagine how this story didn't make it to ATS back in August 2013 when it happened. It should have.

Judge Amy Salerno presided over a trial in the Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio. The jury found the defendant not guilty. Judge Salerno, being the unprofessional person that she obviously is, berated the jury, telling them, "Ninety-nine percent of the time, the jury is correct. Now it’s 98 percent. You got this wrong."

link to source story

What a piece of work. She just trashes the entire system because she disagrees with the verdict?

The story says she did "apologize" later. Big deal. Damage done. I can't believe she didn't face any disciplinary action.

(Actually and sadly, I can believe that she didn't face any disciplinary action.)

My dad was juror once in a murder case in the 70's. In the newspaper, they reported it as one of the fastest case where jurors delivered the verdict.

My dad said it was a no-brainer. The judge told them what they had to say. They went to have a coffee, and an hour later let know they were ready to offer the verdict.
My dad had trouble understanding how some jurors could debate for days or even weeks, having pointers given by the judge.

I have to give the judge some slack here. I cannot imagine the frustration a judge must feel to know the law so well and have to sit there and watch a bunch of amatures let the conviction slip right through their fingers.

I am not saying she had the right to "Berate" ( if that is what you call a voiced opinion) the jurors, but I'll take her word for it.

reply to post by NowanKenubi


There are A LOT of very stupid people out there and I don't think they give IQ tests. I know in high profile cases jury selection is super important, but in some run of the mill deal with a public defender I doubt much thought is given. Everyone has their weird little hangups too. A young kid with a hard life may be pitied or understood by others who grew up in the same way. Mothers seeing a little bit of their own child in the accused. It goes on and on. There are also a fair number of contentious people out there, some of them well spoken and able to sway others to their point of view. Quite a few people base decisions on emotion when it comes to criminal cases.

Talk to a prosecutor and ask them how much things have changed in the last 15 years or so. Now everyone wants DNA, fingerprints, multiple witnesses and surveillance video. It should be beyond a reasonable doubt, but sometimes a jury needs an unreasonable amount of evidence to convict.

The judge clearly should have kept her mouth shut. Not at all sure if her actions were grounds for disciplinary action. I've read a number of things where the judge was critical of the outcome/jury. I would be surprised if they're not allowed to be. Now if she had instructed the jury incorrectly to insure the outcome she wanted, that would be a problem. This almost seems like a POSITIVE to me.

NowanKenubi
My dad was juror once in a murder case in the 70's. In the newspaper, they reported it as one of the fastest case where jurors delivered the verdict.

My dad said it was a no-brainer. The judge told them what they had to say. They went to have a coffee, and an hour later let know they were ready to offer the verdict.
My dad had trouble understanding how some jurors could debate for days or even weeks, having pointers given by the judge.

Seriously. Why think or consider the case when the judge has already considered it and tells you what to think? Your dad sounds like a wise fellow. Go along to get along and don't make waves.

I'm just kidding. The whole point of the jury is to have them decide the case by debating and considering all the evidence before them DESPITE what the judge or anyone else thinks.

I don't cut the Judge any slack. There are many times they know way more than the jury due to evidence that isn't allowed so they see a lot of this stuff. She clearly has no self control. She shouldn't hold a top position in practicing the law if she cannot follow the law.

Judge was totally out of line with this. It was up to the jury to decide not her. Better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted and all that jazz.

Chapman, the juror, said the men had conflicting stories, and it was hard to tell who to believe.

Prosecution did not make their case, plain and simple.

reply to post by MALBOSIA


If a defense attorney had voiced their opinion to that judge after she had issued a verdict, I doubt she would have cut them any slack. They would have spent some time in a cell.

Just another example of the difference between the ruling class and the rest of us peons.

The issue here is not the level of intelligence of the jury.

The issue is not whether the defendant was guilty.

The issue is that this country has a system in place - as imperfect as it may be - and that system is how the justice systems works.

This judge spat on that system. From her high and mighty throne, she just spat on it.

Not acceptable.

Bassago

Chapman, the juror, said the men had conflicting stories, and it was hard to tell who to believe.

There was a video of the incident. I would have to see the video to guess what could have been taken from it, but wth? And the police knew both guys history for "years"

Joseph McGee, 36, was charged with assault and disorderly conduct in a Nov. 12 incident on the Near East Side. Surveillance video showed him appearing to strike another man. A Columbus police report said that McGee and the other man had an “ongoing feud spanning several years.”

I am still not saying she had the right. I am only saying that I would forgive her out burst and it probably would have been had Mr. Chapman not gone home and burst out himself... into tears. I am not calling him a man-baby, I am just saying he is a man that displays traits similar to a baby

McGee also has been charged with aggravated menacing, menacing and witness intimidation in another case with the same man.

There may have been some emotions involved, which does not bode well for my own point but even if she stepped down I am sure the next judge is going to have a similar emotion towards witness tampering.

I won't say that this is black and white but a lot of people here seem to feel that our police should be more human and less robot. But we we don't want that from our judges?

MALBOSIA
I have to give the judge some slack here. I cannot imagine the frustration a judge must feel to know the law so well and have to sit there and watch a bunch of amatures let the conviction slip right through their fingers.

I am not saying she had the right to "Berate" ( if that is what you call a voiced opinion) the jurors, but I'll take her word for it.

Sure itd be frustrating being the know it all of all law. And likely theyd not always live up to that standard.

Hence the jury.

Pointless to have if they just tell em what to think or tell em theyre wrong.

Agree with me now, or you know what happens.. *grabs surgical leaches*

NowanKenubi
The judge told them what they had to say.

I am hoping I am not correct in thinking the judge TOLD them what verdict to give?>
PLEASE, PLEASE tell me I'm wrong

HomerinNC

NowanKenubi
The judge told them what they had to say.

I am hoping I am not correct in thinking the judge TOLD them what verdict to give?>
PLEASE, PLEASE tell me I'm wrong

The judge having an opinion after trial is no big deal. Judges are given
much latitude in their court (probably too much).

But a judge voicing his opinion to a jury BEFORE the verdict (about the
guilt or innocence of the accused)...or going even further and coercing,
enticing, or instructing them how to rule is criminal.

on a side note: if you ever want to be excused from jury duty, just
inquire of the judge about "jury nullification" when your turn comes
...they get you out of there in a jiffy.

Jury nullification. The greatest tool The People have to combat bad legislation. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

incoserv
I can't imagine how this story didn't make it to ATS back in August 2013 when it happened. It should have.

Judge Amy Salerno presided over a trial in the Franklin County Municipal Court in Columbus, Ohio. The jury found the defendant not guilty. Judge Salerno, being the unprofessional person that she obviously is, berated the jury, telling them, "Ninety-nine percent of the time, the jury is correct. Now it’s 98 percent. You got this wrong."

link to source story

What a piece of work. She just trashes the entire system because she disagrees with the verdict?

The story says she did "apologize" later. Big deal. Damage done. I can't believe she didn't face any disciplinary action.

(Actually and sadly, I can believe that she didn't face any disciplinary action.)

edit on 26-2-2014 by incoserv because: typo

well .. this is what ATS is for, catch the news that didn't make the 'news' .. Thanks for posting..!!!!! Never be surprised to think an article such as this wouldn't be on ATS, the MSM does an EXTREMELY well job and hiding things exactly like this.

and...if I was in charge of removing Judges from their posts .. she's be fired immediately! There are consequences to our actions.. some more severe than others..

so long as the judge did not interfere with the trail and showed no bias either way during the trail, and only voiced their opinion to the jury after the verdict was read, i see no problem with it.

the judge is a citizen too, and has the right to express it. what better way to get your opinion heard than with a captive audience, such as a jury that has not been dismissed yet.

another thing that comes to mind is this.

how many times have you heard a judge go off on a convicted person during the sentencing phase of a trail.

if the judge shouldn't voice their opinion that a jury made the wrong choice shouldn't they have to hold their tongue during sentencing or any other time they address the accused / convicted.

hounddoghowlie
... the judge is a citizen too, and has the right to express it. ...

I beg to differ. When the judge puts on that robe and steps up to the bench, the judge becomes something more than a simple citizen. The judge becomes a part of the political and legal machinery that makes our justice system work.

As such, the judge has certain powers that a regular citizen does not have. With those powers, however, go great responsibilities.

Respecting the system and how it works is one of those responsibilities. While the judge is sitting on that bench and wearing those robes, the judge does not act as an individual, but as part of that machinery. Therefore, IMO, the judge has a responsibility to allow the machine to work without interjecting his or her opinions into it.

As a really weak analogy, can you imagine a referee at a baseball game telling players that they are incompetent, or expressing disdain for the facility in which the game is being held? That would not be appropriate. The referee is there to impartially judge the game, nothing more.

hounddoghowlie
another thing that comes to mind is this. how many times have you heard a judge go off on a convicted person during the sentencing phase of a trail. if the judge shouldn't voice their opinion that a jury made the wrong choice shouldn't they have to hold their tongue during sentencing or any other time they address the accused / convicted.

Comments made to the convicted are done within the context of the working of the machine. One the machine has pronounced a person guilty, the judge should speak into that situation as a judge. His or her comments may be of a personal nature (e.g., addressing the character or the acts of the convicted), but the comments are made from within the operation of the system.

This judge's comments were extraneous, not a part of the functioning of the system but opposed to it.

reply to post by incoserv

I beg to differ. When the judge puts on that robe and steps up to the bench, the judge becomes something more than a simple citizen. The judge becomes a part of the political and legal machinery that makes our justice system work.

i see that you didn't include where i said.

so long as the judge did not interfere with the trial and showed no bias either way during the trail, and only voiced their opinion to the jury after the verdict was read,

please show me any law where that it says a judge does not have the right to express their opinion, for that matter show me any law that says a judge has to give up their right to free speech when they put on a robe. with or with out their robe on. so long as they are not doing it in a official capacity. so far as i know they can speak their mind. just like you me and joe six pack around the corner, the first amendment give us that right.

Comments made to the convicted are done within the context of the working of the machine. One the machine has pronounced a person guilty, the judge should speak into that situation as a judge. His or her comments may be of a personal nature (e.g., addressing the character or the acts of the convicted), but the comments are made from within the operation of the system.

part of the above i can agree with, so long as it is done to describe how society views the crime. i can see that in a opinion that may come from the operation of the system.

but when the judge, starts going on about how they personally feel about a particular individual and their action that is beyond their job and beyond the law. ie not part of the system. that is their personal belief and they should not be allowed to do so.

if that is allowed, then telling the jury they got it wrong after the trial was over and does not effect the outcome of the trial that was just concluded, should be too. what's the difference their both a personal opinion and the first one has no effect on outcome of the verdict.

but the latter could and i dare say does in some instances have a effect as to what sentence guideline a judge would follow.
ie i hate drug users so i'm gonna send you up for the max time allowed.

This judge's comments were extraneous, not a part of the functioning of the system but opposed to it.

no it wasn't, her comments were made after the trail. not during the trial or the reading of the verdict, her comments had no effect on the out come of the trail and justice was served.

if they the jury were discharged the people didn't have to stay and listen to anything the judge had to say. the trail was over.

this from the ohio bar jury service faq's page.

After the verdict, jurors are allowed to discuss the case if they choose. Jury Service Ohio State Bar Association

or from washington state which i think says it best.

5. DON'T talk to anyone about your deliberations or about the verdict until the judge discharges the jury. After discharge, you may discuss the verdict and the deliberations with anyone, including the media, the lawyers, or your family. But DON'T feel obligated to do so --no juror can be forced to talk without a court order. Washington Courts A Juror's Guide

they gave their verdict. now she may have chose her words poorly, but she still had the right to speak her mind.

this part here in the story,

She and other judges regularly meet with jurors after a verdict to discuss the process, and that is what she did on Thursday

i did a search, and found no where in ohio law that says that is part of the system. i admit that i didn't scour the web, but if that was a law that a jury had to stay and talk with judges, after a verdict had been given. you would think that it would show up some where with in the first few pages.

if they were not discharged, and they were continuing in their duty as jurors, she should have kept her opinion to herself.
if they were just hanging around after the fact, because a judge asked them to, that's something else.