For anyone who views this outcome as "our justice system working as
intended," based on the self-justifying statements of Juror 4, I
encourage you to read the article that Mary Garrard posted a link to:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/baker_city_man_bounced_from_or.html
which gives Juror 11's account. It includes a facsimile of the note that
Juror 4 passed to the head juror, drawing attention to Juror 11's past
employment with the BLM (as a summer job, 20 years ago, which he had
disclosed in voir dire).
By his account, the statement about being biased appears to have been
blown up beyond context.
Juror 11 also provides context for Juror 4's other assertions about him,
in the e-mail that Juror 4 sent to the Oregonian.
Also worth noting is one of his main points of contention with Juror 4:
As the prosecution had argued, the defendants' admission of a plan to
establish adverse possession of the refuge was effectively evidence of
intent for the alleged conspiracy. I personally find it astonishing that
the other jurors did not accept this argument -- do they not understand
the meaning of the word "adverse"?
This is not really how our system is supposed to work, when one juror
submarines another just to obtain the outcome that he prefers. In my
view Judge Brown was correct in her initial decision to retain Juror 11.
It appears that this should have ended in a mistrial.
--
Joel Geier
Camp Adair area north of Corvallis
POST: Send email to boo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
HELP: Contact boo-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
