Clinton may be Juror in Federal Murder case

Timber Loftis · 03-01-2003, 01:12 PM

What a funny feel-good story.

At least it's not a sex case (Rain's comment - I give credit where it's due).

NEW YORK (March 1) - Former President Bill Clinton has been tapped for jury duty.

A questionnaire designed to help defense lawyers and prosecutors select a jury for a federal attempted murder case indicated that Prospective Juror No. 142 was actually William Jefferson Clinton.

Although Clinton's name was never revealed at a hearing in federal court in Manhattan on Friday, his answers, read aloud in the courtroom, provided the giveaway.

Under previous jobs held, the respondent answered President of the United States. He also wrote that he thought he could be fair and impartial, despite his ``unusual experience with the O.I.C.,'' or Office of Independent Counsel.

David E. Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, said that Clinton is ready and willing to serve. ``The former president is subject to jury duty, he's done his part, and if selected he would serve,'' Kendall told The New York Times in Saturday editions.

Federal prosecutors and the attorney for the defendant, Dushon Foster, disagreed about whether Prospective Juror No. 142 should be selected for the case. Foster is charged with attempted murder in an alleged gang shooting and could face life in prison, if convicted.

``Any particular question in Questionnaire 142 that you want to direct me to?'' Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald asked the prosecutors, the Times reported.

``All of them, judge,'' a prosecutor, Daniel M. Gitner, said.

``I suspect there has never been anyone who answered yes to so many questions and survived the voir dire process,'' said Buchwald, referring to the next step in the jury selection process - a personal interview that prospective jurors who were not removed by the judge would undergo.

Defense lawyer Roger L. Stavis, disagreed with the prosecution and said that No. 142 should not be immediately disqualified.

But Buchwald, who was appointed by Clinton in 1999, appeared to agree with the prosecutors, citing concerns about sensationalism.

``To have Juror 142 here, with Secret Service protection is to, it seems to me, undermine our efforts to keep the case focused quietly on the evidence,'' the Times cited Buchwald as saying.

Buchwald said if she changed her mind, she would let the prosecutors and defense attorney know by Monday.

03/01/03 09:32 EST

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Judas Maccabeus · 03-01-2003, 01:47 PM

Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict?

Clinton: Well, that would depend on what your definiton of "verdict" is.

Attalus · 03-01-2003, 01:50 PM

Timber, as a lawyer, would you want a weasel like him on your jury?

John D Harris · 03-01-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Judas Maccabeus:
Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict?

Clinton: Well, that would depend on what your definiton of "verdict" is.

ROTFLMAO you beat me to IT

HolyWarrior · 03-03-2003, 12:51 AM

You sure that's 'juror' and not 'defendant'?

Lifetime · 03-03-2003, 04:45 PM

As much as it would be funny to see Clinton as a juror, in a legal sense his background and identity alone are grounds for immediate challenge. Jurors are supposed to be free from bias and randomly selected, as well as free from any sort of criminal involvement in the courts. Can you imagine the persuasive influence he might have on the other jurors, who would probably still accord him the respect of an ex-president? I mean hell if Clinton told you that the defendant was guilty and then presented a semi-convincing explaination why, wouldn't you listen to him more than any other person? (even if he IS a law-dodging weasel [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Timber Loftis · 03-03-2003, 04:54 PM

Well, Clinton certainly knows the law. He always got the law right on the money. If that's what you call a weasel, well show me to your nearest hen house.

But, knowing the law is actually a "minus" for a juror. You want them to decide the facts and apply the law the judge gives them. Generally, as a lawyer, I know I'll quickly get out of any jury duty ever.

Plus, Clinton has faced federal prosecutors with the O.I.C. NOw, this may not be the exact same office, but I see a possible bias. You'll notice in the article that the prosecutors do too.

They're just whining because they're going to have to burn one of their "freebie" jury challenges to get rid of him. These are the free challenges you use without question to narrow your jury pool for reasons that are seen as "irrelevant." Prosecutors use these all the time for what are really "not fair" reasons. Black defendant - get the black jurors out of the jury pool (same with most minorities). Female Juror #14 seems to have a crush on the defense attorney - 86 her too. That's the way it works. Clinton will NOT be a juror on this case when it finally comes to trial.

03-01-2003, 01:47 PM	#2
Judas Maccabeus The Magister Join Date: November 10, 2002 Location: Kentucky Age: 36 Posts: 125	Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict? Clinton: Well, that would depend on what your definiton of "verdict" is. __________________ <br /><br />\'Far be it from me to do such a thing as flee from them! If our time has come, let us die bravely for our kinsmen and not leave a stain upon our glory!\'<br />--1 Maccabees 9:10

03-01-2003, 01:50 PM	#3
Attalus Symbol of Bane Join Date: November 26, 2001 Location: Texas Age: 75 Posts: 8,167	Timber, as a lawyer, would you want a weasel like him on your jury? __________________ Even Heroes sometimes fail...

03-03-2003, 04:45 PM	#6
Lifetime Red Dragon Join Date: March 3, 2001 Location: Scotch College, Melbourne Posts: 1,503	As much as it would be funny to see Clinton as a juror, in a legal sense his background and identity alone are grounds for immediate challenge. Jurors are supposed to be free from bias and randomly selected, as well as free from any sort of criminal involvement in the courts. Can you imagine the persuasive influence he might have on the other jurors, who would probably still accord him the respect of an ex-president? I mean hell if Clinton told you that the defendant was guilty and then presented a semi-convincing explaination why, wouldn't you listen to him more than any other person? (even if he IS a law-dodging weasel [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) __________________ \'Cause its always raining in my head. Forget all the things I should have said..

03-03-2003, 04:54 PM	#7
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Well, Clinton certainly knows the law. He always got the law right on the money. If that's what you call a weasel, well show me to your nearest hen house. But, knowing the law is actually a "minus" for a juror. You want them to decide the facts and apply the law the judge gives them. Generally, as a lawyer, I know I'll quickly get out of any jury duty ever. Plus, Clinton has faced federal prosecutors with the O.I.C. NOw, this may not be the exact same office, but I see a possible bias. You'll notice in the article that the prosecutors do too. They're just whining because they're going to have to burn one of their "freebie" jury challenges to get rid of him. These are the free challenges you use without question to narrow your jury pool for reasons that are seen as "irrelevant." Prosecutors use these all the time for what are really "not fair" reasons. Black defendant - get the black jurors out of the jury pool (same with most minorities). Female Juror #14 seems to have a crush on the defense attorney - 86 her too. That's the way it works. Clinton will NOT be a juror on this case when it finally comes to trial. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tom Hurndall case [Israeli soldier tried for murder of British student]	Grojlach	General Discussion	6	06-21-2004 02:23 PM
Federal Outsourcing	\Conan/	General Discussion	2	07-16-2003 04:13 PM
Amendment Would Require Federal Judges to Report Sentences to Congress	Timber Loftis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	1	04-05-2003 02:00 AM
Juror 142 - Clinton - not selected	Timber Loftis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	0	03-06-2003 05:55 PM
These were taken from actual Federal Employee "Performance" Evaluations.	John D Harris	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	08-16-2001 06:24 PM

03-01-2003, 01:12 PM	#1
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	What a funny feel-good story. At least it's not a sex case (Rain's comment - I give credit where it's due). NEW YORK (March 1) - Former President Bill Clinton has been tapped for jury duty. A questionnaire designed to help defense lawyers and prosecutors select a jury for a federal attempted murder case indicated that Prospective Juror No. 142 was actually William Jefferson Clinton. Although Clinton's name was never revealed at a hearing in federal court in Manhattan on Friday, his answers, read aloud in the courtroom, provided the giveaway. Under previous jobs held, the respondent answered President of the United States. He also wrote that he thought he could be fair and impartial, despite his ``unusual experience with the O.I.C.,'' or Office of Independent Counsel. David E. Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, said that Clinton is ready and willing to serve. ``The former president is subject to jury duty, he's done his part, and if selected he would serve,'' Kendall told The New York Times in Saturday editions. Federal prosecutors and the attorney for the defendant, Dushon Foster, disagreed about whether Prospective Juror No. 142 should be selected for the case. Foster is charged with attempted murder in an alleged gang shooting and could face life in prison, if convicted. ``Any particular question in Questionnaire 142 that you want to direct me to?'' Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald asked the prosecutors, the Times reported. ``All of them, judge,'' a prosecutor, Daniel M. Gitner, said. ``I suspect there has never been anyone who answered yes to so many questions and survived the voir dire process,'' said Buchwald, referring to the next step in the jury selection process - a personal interview that prospective jurors who were not removed by the judge would undergo. Defense lawyer Roger L. Stavis, disagreed with the prosecution and said that No. 142 should not be immediately disqualified. But Buchwald, who was appointed by Clinton in 1999, appeared to agree with the prosecutors, citing concerns about sensationalism. ``To have Juror 142 here, with Secret Service protection is to, it seems to me, undermine our efforts to keep the case focused quietly on the evidence,'' the Times cited Buchwald as saying. Buchwald said if she changed her mind, she would let the prosecutors and defense attorney know by Monday. 03/01/03 09:32 EST Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. __________________

03-03-2003, 12:51 AM	#5
HolyWarrior User Suspended for 2 weeks by Ziroc [Dec30] Join Date: July 7, 2002 Location: IL Age: 57 Posts: 472	You sure that's 'juror' and not 'defendant'?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)