Judge okays Jurors getting high or drunk

by Big Tex 4 Replies latest social current

• 

  Big Tex

  Good news. If you get called for jury duty, bring a bottle of shiraz or smoke out. It's okay.

  http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/15/drunk.jurors.reut/index.html

  N.Y. judge's ruling affects 'high' court

  NEW YORK (Reuters) -- New Yorkers dreading jury duty take note: it's OK to be drunk on booze or high on pot or cocaine while doing your civic duty.

  So said a New York judge Wednesday, who refused to set aside the verdict on a retired city firefighter convicted of swiping souvenirs from Ground Zero, citing the U.S. Supreme Court to back her ruling.

  Samuel Brandon, 61, found guilty in March of petty larceny for stealing personal items from the ruins of the World Trade Center, asked for a new trial after a juror told him after the verdict that he had been drinking during deliberations.

  Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Ellen Coin cited a 1987 Supreme Court decision which rejected the argument that jurors consuming alcohol, smoking marijuana, snorting cocaine and falling asleep constituted an "outside influence" on jurors.

  Coin said being drunk on jury duty was "reprehensible," but that there was little she could do about it given the Supreme Court ruling.

  "However severe their effect and improper their use, drugs or alcohol voluntarily ingested by a juror seem no more an 'outside influence' than a virus, poorly prepared food, or lack of sleep," the Supreme Court said in its decision.

  Brandon faces up to one year in jail at his September 27 sentencing.
• 

  jwbot

  I do not see where she says its "OK". Its just not considered and "outside influence" and the supreme court ruling backs that up. Are you trying to make her sound bad? Or did you just take it out of context?

  *be forwarned, I am really tired and not trying to be abrasive...I need coffee*
• 

  CeriseRose

  This is the statement that gets me:

  "However severe their effect and improper their use, drugs or alcohol voluntarily ingested by a juror seem no more an 'outside influence' than a virus, poorly prepared food, or lack of sleep," the Supreme Court said in its decision.

  It seems to me that they are trying to boil it down to a standardized definition of 'impairment.' A key word for me in this is 'voluntary'. How many people voluntarily get sick, eat bad food, or choose to not sleep (okay, us computer geeks aside)? I would say most of that is involuntary.

  So if I go to work sick or with a stomach ache, or sleepy it will be tolerated just the same as if I come to work loaded? Not bloody likely...

  I wonder what the supreme court justice(s) had voluntarily ingested, and how severely they were being effected (affected?) by it when they ruled that way?!?

  Edited cuz I wrote my ironical statement the wrong way.
• 

  Big Tex

  I do not see where she says its "OK". Its just not considered and "outside influence" and the supreme court ruling backs that up.

  You are correct. I apologize for my error. I was having a little fun with an article I read on CNN.com. In the future I will endeavor to post in a more correct fashion.

  Are you trying to make her sound bad?

  No. If you make that assumption that is about you, not my intent.

  Or did you just take it out of context?

  Well if you would have bothered to look up the hyperlink that I inserted before the article you would see that I copied the ENTIRE article. If you have a problem with context, take it up with CNN. Or better yet, go research the case yourself.

  *be forwarned, I am really tired and not trying to be abrasive...I need coffee*

  Understood. Forgive me for seeing humor in an article or subject where there was clearly none.
• 

  kls

  Big Tex. i think it is hysterical ecpecially with the head line ,,, ,High Court.