• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jury in Michael Slager (cop who shot a man in the back) trial has been selected.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

masud

Banned
akileese said:
Jesus christ this person should not have even cleared juror selection.
Click to expand...

The 2nd quote wasn't wasn't the juror lol that was a famous quote from the Dredd Scott supreme Court ruling. Sorry I should have actually wrote something to be clear.
 
K

kirblar

Member
@JonSwaine
Juror in Michael Slager trial says in letter to judge he "cannot with good conscience consider a guilty verdict" for killing of Walter Scott
Click to expand...
Judge should just find a reason to remove him.

At least it's 11-1 the other way, bodes well for a retrial.
 
M

mike6467

Member
"I can't sleep. Nightmares. When I was in jail, the only thing they wanted to do was give me medicine," Slager testified. "I remember the doctor who was in charge of mental health came into my cell and said, 'I'll give you whatever medicine you want.' It was a roller coaster."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the traditional jail experience, you get locked up and they give you all the drugs you want, no wonder we have so many repeat offenders, clearly this man has suffered enough.
/s
. Holy shit this country.
 
A

akileese

Member
masud said:
The 2nd quote wasn't wasn't the juror lol that was a famous quote from the Dredd Scott supreme Court ruling. Sorry I should have actually wrote something to be clear.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm aware. I was referring to the first one. The intent with the statement seems quite transparent.
 
V

Vena

Member
kirblar said:
Judge should just find a reason to remove him.

At least it's 11-1 the other way, bodes well for a retrial.
Click to expand...

If the juror actually said this, he will be removed. He's being partial with clear bias and that is a failure of being on the jury. Prosecution will resist all attempts at a mistrial, and the judge may well throw the juror under the bus. He's not holding out on cause, he's holding out on "good faith".

Edit: Looks like the jury also wants to avoid a mistrial. They are going to browbeat the resisting juror at this rate.
 
V

Vena

Member
Volimar said:
It's actually refreshing that most of the jurors seem to understand the importance of this case.
Click to expand...

So long as they do not come back with a deadlock statement from the foreperson, the case cannot go to mistrial I believe. But I may be wrong.
 
M

megalowho

Member
I've been in that deliberation room before with one or two stubborn holdouts with idiotic arguments that fly in the face of evidence, testimony and consensus. Here's hoping the 11 in the room are able to get through and avoid a mistrial, for justice's sake. Sounds like they're doing their best.
 
T

Takuan

Member
megalowho said:
I've been in that deliberation room before with one or two stubborn holdouts with idiotic arguments that fly in the face of evidence, testimony and consensus. Here's hoping the 11 in the room are able to get through and avoid a mistrial, for justice's sake. Sounds like they're doing their best.
Click to expand...

In situations like that I feel there should be a process to invalidate that juror's vote.
 
M

megalowho

Member
Takuan said:
In situations like that I feel there should be a process to invalidate that juror's vote.
Click to expand...
There's definitely alternate jurors that sat through the whole trial with the ability to take their place, but I don't have an understanding of what would justify removing a juror from a case at this point in the process.
 
T

Takuan

Member
kirblar said:
Judges can pull jurors.
Click to expand...

Get this fucker outta there then, so justice can be done and everyone can call it a day.
7ymFBMzl.png
 
M

mike6467

Member
kirblar said:
Judges can pull jurors and put in an alternate in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing they need a good reason to use them, but backup jurors are a thing, right?

Edit: I posted after this:

megalowho said:
There's definitely alternate jurors that sat through the whole trial with the ability to take their place, but I don't have an understanding of what would justify removing a juror from a case at this point in the process.
Click to expand...

That's my question too, a quick search seemed to indicate they were used if a juror got horribly sick or had any other major trauma during the trial.
 
T

theignoramus

Member
Im betting the White troll juror is holding out because he thinks the initial lack of compliance by Scott cancels out the need to punish Slager for killing him.
Im seeing this argument repeated ad nauseum on twitter. (all by deplorables)
 
Rest

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
theignoramus said:
Im betting the White troll juror is holding out because he thinks the initial lack of compliance by Scott cancels out the need to punish Slager for killing him.
Im seeing this argument repeated ad nauseum on twitter. (all by deplorables)
Click to expand...
Murdering him. Unjustifiedly killing a human being is called murder.
 
N

Nephtis

Member
Other than removing the juror, what else can the judge do? Is that about the extent of it? Could the juror be held in contempt due to his/her noncompliance ?
 
I

ikarinokami

Banned
this will be a mistrial. it's 11-1 to convict on murder. anyone who says can't in good conscience isn't even looking at the evidence anymore, the other jurors are never going to break him, not sure why they bothered. obviously this juror lied in voire dire and said he could be fair, when he couldn't. and wouldn't.


it's too late to remove the juror because the judge dismissed the alternates. not sure why you would do that, when the chance of hidden bias juror is a strong possibility , probably though the evidence was so overwhelming and it is, but hidden bias should never be counted against.
 
E

electroshockwave

Member
Slayven said:
I had to look up which one this waas

Shooting_of_Walter_Scott.jpeg


Come on,
Click to expand...
Holy shit, I remember seeing the video of this and him planting the taser afterwards. You'd think this would be so simple. That even if there was a racist juror it would be something more subtle in the deliberations. Not just openly ignoring reality like in this case.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
How fucking depressing. What piece of shit wouldn't convict on that evidence? I would love to find out their back story and see if they are mentally incompetent or just a racist piece of garbage.
 
K

kame-sennin

Member
The jury’s request for explanation likely relates to an earlier application on Thursday made by the jury requesting clarification on the legal distinction between “fear” and “passion”, the potential difference between a claim of justifiable self-defense, which Slager’s legal team have argued throughout, and a manslaughter conviction, which would find that Slager unlawfully killed Scott in the heat of passion.

Newman had declined to provide the jury guidance, telling them on Friday morning that it was “solely for you” to decide.

In response to the first declaration of deadlock, Newman called the jury back into the court room and urged them, under a so-called Allen charge, to continue deliberations and push for a decision.

“It isn’t always easy for two people to agree so when 12 people must agree it must be more difficult,” he said.
Click to expand...

On Wednesday, Newman allowed the jury to consider the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, meaning an unlawful killing that occurred without “malice” but rather in the heat of passion after provocation. Slager had originally been charged with murder.

Voluntary manslaughter carries a sentence of two to 30 years in prison, while a murder sentence carries 30 years to life in prison.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/walter-scott-shooting-trial-jury-michael-slager

The warning signs are all there. This jury doesn't want to put a cop away for good.
 
Z

Zocano

Member
kirblar said:
It's not the jury. It's one juror.
Click to expand...

So I'm confused on the actual process, could you clear it up?

Jury can't reach unanimous decision so they have to mistrial (voiding the trial?)

and the prosecution can pursue a retrial (redo) with all new jury?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Zocano said:
So I'm confused on the actual process, could you clear it up?

Jury can't reach unanimous decision so they have to mistrial (voiding the trial?)

and the prosecution can pursue a retrial (redo) with all new jury?
Click to expand...
Correct, if it goes to mistrial, its void and prosecution can redo.

Given that they can redo, and it appears to be 11-1 with one irrational holdout, they'd redo it. (also, avoids a PR nightmare.)

The judge has offered them a lesser option. What I'm hoping is that the judge is sort of trying to sucker the holdout in to a 12-0 (w/ a mistrial on the main charge), but then sentence him to 30 anyway.
 
V

Volimar

Member
davepoobond said:
i couldnt believe that statement from the one juror.

holy crap... if this, of all cases...
Click to expand...

What statement?

"cannot with good conscience consider a guilty verdict" for killing of Walter Scott
Click to expand...

Yeah that's pretty bad.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect
Click to expand...

The juror didn't say that.
 
K

kame-sennin

Member
A mistrial was declared today in the state murder trial of former North Charleston, South Carolina, police officer Michael Slager, who was accused in the shooting death of an unarmed black man.

The jury said they were unable to come to unanimous decision. The jury had been deliberating since closing arguments last Wednesday.

Slager, who is white, was accused of killing Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, at a traffic stop on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston while Slager was an officer with the city's police department. Witness video that surfaced shortly after the deadly encounter appears to show the moment Slager fatally shot Scott as he ran away. The video garnered national attention, propelling Slager into the spotlight. Slager was fired from the force after the shooting, according to The Associated Press.

After the mistrial was announced, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson thanked the jury for their "exemplary service," adding, "I don't mean to downplay or understate my disappointment that together we weren't able to reach a resolution."

She also thanked the Scott family.

"When I finished up closing arguments," she said, "and I walked over to give hugs, poppa Scott, the patriarch of the family, said to me, 'You'll always be my daughter.'

"I just thank them so much for trusting me and for being an example for this community and leading this community to peace," Wilson said.

Defense attorney Andy Savage also thanked the jury.

"This is not a case about an individual or family," Savage said, adding the case is about "the state of South Carolina" -- not Walter Scott. "That's not to diminish Mr. Scott," Savage added.

"The rule of law has to be preserved in this country, and you have done that," Savage continued. "Thank you."

Slager had pleaded not guilty to murder. But as the trial concluded last week, the jury was also allowed to consider a voluntary manslaughter charge. The voluntary manslaughter charge was requested by the prosecution and the judge allowed it based on testimony he heard during the trial.

Slager also faces a federal trial, which is scheduled for next year.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-decl...l/story?id=43980554&cid=share_facebook_widget
 
S

Shaanyboi

Banned
Of course he's going to walk... Why would anyone expect a cop to be held accountable for their actions when it comes to minorities?
 
RPGCrazied

RPGCrazied

Member
Shaanyboi said:
Of course he's going to walk... Why would anyone expect a cop to be held accountable for their actions when it comes to minorities?
Click to expand...

We have no justice anymore in this country.

And this was was an easy case, fucking guilty. The guy was running away and got shot in the back 6 times. How is the cop fearful for his life? What a disgrace.
 
B

Beefy

Member
As i said in the other thread. If they hold a re-trial I wonder how many racists will be on the Jury this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

'Blue Lives Matter" sign put up near site where Walter Scott was killed by the police
2 3
106
14K
Gentleman Jack replied
Ohio Ex-Cop Who Shot Black Motorist Will Not Face New Trial
1
1K
GrizzleBoy replied
  • Locked
Dylann Roof (neo-Nazi Charleston church shooter) found guilty on all counts
2 3 4 5 6
263
29K
daffy replied
AP: A look at high-profile police-related deaths of US blacks
5
3K
Earthbound64 replied
  • Locked
Sourth Carolina ex-Cop that shot man in the back indicted in Walter Scott killing
6
654
Badlucktroll replied
Top Bottom