What a difference 111 years make

[Harry]

I can't help but notice how long it takes to have a trial today. There are quite a few prominent cases in the news. Scott Petersen, Robert Blake, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson and Phil Spector.

Each of these modern cases have had numerous pre-trial hearings where evidence is discussed. Decisions are made whether the evidence is to be admitted. Apparently they decide one thing at a time and set another date for the next pre-trial hearing. This goes on for months.

At the Borden trial, no pre-trial hearings. Evidence was submitted during the trial. One side objected, the jury was sent out, and they argued the issue then and there. The Justices ruled, the jury was called back in and the trial resumed. Short and sweet.

On jury selection today it can take weeks as each side (assuming the defendant can afford it) has "jury experts" to pick over each word the prospective juror says.

At the Borden trial the jury was decided in less than a day and the trial began. The judge did all the questioning and each side could dismiss a specific number of jurors for cause.

Lizzie's trial took about 2 weeks. The Petersen trial is expected to last 4 to 6 months. I can't even imagine how long Jackson's trial will last. That assumes he won't buy his way out of this one too.

I'm sure there are many more such disparities.

[doug65oh]

I know what you mean, Harry.. and wasn't Lizzie's death-qualified jury picked in something like 5 hours, 48 minutes - without benefit of a consultant??

[Kat]

These consultants seem pretty good.
But to me it's almost like a magic act.
I wish I got that Court TV or wherever they televise these proceedings.

That 5th juror who talked- that seemed like a very odd thing to allow him to do.
Didn't OJ have a dismissed juror? He wrote a book?

This all costs a huge amount of money.
OJ's defense was not paid as yet, are they?
Do Peterson's defense think they will get paid?
When one defends a murderer, why in heck would they think they would get paid?
At least Lizzie and Emma paid their tab.

[doug65oh]

OJ's trial had - there was at least one dismissed juror...I'm almost inclined to say there was another also...Jeanette ... Harris, was it? The other as I remember was a guy.

As for televising the Peterson proceedings, both sides filed papers about that...neither was in favor of it because of the effect on the families and the potential for a media circus - which they ended up with anyway of course. Both judges agreed, and only the pre-trial hearings were televised.

About Mr. Bigmouth (the doofus formerly known as Juror #5) I couldn't believe it - he gets booted and slips into "walk and squawk" mode the same day? It's a shame public flogging isn't in fashion anymore.

The funniest thing though, all the commentators were remarking what a fine job the jury consultant did in picking him (JoEllen WhoseNameIKnowButCannotSpell apparently did it). The first thought I had was "Wait a minute - he's not on the jury anymore, so... why give her the Oscar for picking him??!!"

About the fees, I've heard at least two stories, the most recent of which is that Peterson's fee - Geragos is suposedly getting a flat fee for defending him. How true that is of course is an open question, but it was the latest filthy rumor I'd heard about fees.

The amount Lizzie and Emma paid is astounding... Rebello's adjusted-for-inflation figure was...$9,000,000 or near to that?

If there's any justice at all, in twelve months that dismissed juror will be out there pounding the publicity circuit, only to be repeatedly asked by booking agents: "I'm sorry...who are you again??"

[Harry]

That dismissed juror is a walking, blithering (can't call what he says talking) advertisement for professional juries. He's polluted the jury and why the prosecution didn't join the defense in requesting a mistrial I'll never know.

As Doug65oh said, Court TV does not have cameras in the court room but has reporters outside along with the other media.

[Harry]

The amount Lizzie and Emma paid is astounding... Rebello's adjusted-for-inflation figure was...$9,000,000 or near to that?

A quick rule of thumb to calculate 1892 money into todays (the year 2002) is to multiply the amount by 19. That is only an approximation as inflation does not apply evenly to all things. I use a factor of 20 simply because its easy to calculate without going to an inflation calulator URL.

For instance Robinson's $25,000 fee would be about $500,000 in todays money.

I'm afraid the figure of $9,000,000 is grossly overstated. Assuming Andrew's fortune to be $375,000, Emma and Lizzie would have inherited approx. $7,500,000 between them. Still not bad pocket money.

[Kat]

I just heard on Jay Leno's monologue that Juror #5 is an airport screener. Leno says good luck with that job, since he can't recognize the obvious.

Also Leno said Juror #5 will probably start his new job soon, which is to help OJ look for the real killers.

[Kat]

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Is this the inflation calculator site?

I read somewhere that it cost the State of Massachusetts, in 1893, the equivalent of 2 million dollars for that unsuccessful prosecution.

That means they thought they got their culprit.

[Kat]

In the trial of Rev. Avery for the murder of Sarah Cornell, 239 witnesses were called and it lasted 21 court days.
They had a hard time picking a jury because the crime and the witnesses comprised 2 states, Mass. and R.I..
They finally made it a court order (which both sides agreed to) that only those called to the jury who had no preconceived opinion at all period, would be considered. One day they had to call in what they termed 5 juries- which really was 60 individuals, to voire dire.

There were a total of 5 months of hearings, imprisonment and trial.

(pgs. 200 & 213- Fall River Outrage.)

The guy walked.
The case is unsolved.
I Googled her name and got a Forum Archive from us- topic by Harry!