Author Topic: Blake jurors demand apology from DA for calling them 'stupid' (Read 575 times)

Holden McGroin · « **on:** March 25, 2005, 05:47:20 AM »

Quote

Blake jurors demand apology from DA for calling them 'stupid'
[/SIZE] By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ - AP March 25, 2005

Jurors who acquitted actor Robert Blake of murder demanded an apology from District Attorney Steve Cooley who called their decision "incredibly stupid."

"I'm just.. just.. I could just s**t," Blake jury foreman Thomas Nicholson said Thursday. "It looks to me like he don't have no faith in the jury choosin'. After all, it was his people what who helped choosed and picked us."

Addressing reporters Tuesday, Cooley defended the prosecutor who lost the Blake case and said he was stunned jurors found the actor not guilty of killing his wife and of one count of soliciting her murder.

The panel deadlocked on a second solicitation charge that was then dismissed by a judge.

"Quite frankly, based on my review of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin. He is a miserable human being," Cooley said.

Cooley stood by his comments Thursday night before he attended a gala hosted by the University of California's La Raza Law Student Association.

"There was a failure in this case. It was not my prosecutor. It was not the work of LAPD. It was the jurors didn't quite get it," he said.

"It was harsh. It was blunt, and I could have phrased it differently, but bottom line it was the wrong verdict. Sometimes jurors should be held accountable for their mistakes."

Other jurors who deliberated nearly nine days said Cooley's comments were unfair.

"If Mr. Cooley ... thinks there was enough proof to convict, then he shoulda hada spent more time tellin' us an' what he knew and stop doin' other stuff." said juror Roberto Emerick.

Professional rules of conduct bar attorneys from certain public statements that are likely to "materially" prejudice a pending case. Another regulation prevents a lawyer from asking questions or saying anything to jurors that would harass or embarrass jurors or otherwise influence their future service on another panel.

weaselsan · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:02:04 AM »

There right, he should apologize for calling them "Stupid". Thats a direct insult to stupid people.

Pei · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:19:37 AM »

"I'm just.. just.. I could just s**t," Blake jury foreman Thomas Nicholson said Thursday. "It looks to me like he don't have no faith in the jury choosin'. After all, it was his people what who helped choosed and picked us."

And the proscecution rests, your honour.

FiLtH · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:27:36 AM »

Hehehe is that real?

Wow if it is.

But...this part " Sometimes jurors should be held accountable for their mistakes."

Thats just plain scary.

Shuckins · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2005, 08:30:58 AM »

Yeah...but the prosecutor helped select the jurors.

Those who live in glass houses...

Charon · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:12:09 AM »

A jury of our peers... These same guys vote in both the red and blue states.

Charon

Ripper29 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2005, 09:41:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
There right, he should apologize for calling them "Stupid". Thats a direct insult to stupid people.

Jurors who acquitted actor Robert Blake of murder demanded an apology from District Attorney Steve Cooley who called their decision "incredibly stupid."

little different then calling them stupid....but as Forrest's mom always said "Stupid is as stuipd does"

JimBear · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2005, 10:11:25 AM »

Yeah, the procescuter should not have had to bother with a jury at all. sutpid peoples get in the way of his work. After all everyone who goes to trial is guilty, right

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2005, 10:31:45 AM »

Did they just reuse the OJ jury?

Chairboy · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2005, 11:03:53 AM »

I love how consistently I can expect (and get) a bunch of monday morning quarter backing.

Some of you remind me of Bill Dauterive from King of the Hill. Paraphrase: "I served on two juries, and we did our job. Two cases, two convictions!"

midnight Target · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2005, 11:04:36 AM »

Maybe the DA was Incredibly Stupid for putting on such a weak case.

Habu · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2005, 12:20:50 PM »

You guys all seem so smart.

How can a guy go outside a restaurant and shoot someone, run inside after and...

No murder weapon is every found. Do you not think that every rooftop, garbage, catch basin etc for 5 blocks around was not searched and searched again after the police arrived?

Did they find gunpowder on his cloths and hands? How do you shoot someone so close range and not get totally covered in gun powder residue.

No witnesses.

He may have hired someone to kill her but he did not pull the trigger and did not act alone.

The jury did what it could but without a gun how can you say he did it? What he ate the thing afterwards?

The police never found the other person who either acted alone and killed her for his own reasons or did it for Blake. Either way there was no evidence to directly prove Blake did it.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2005, 12:25:48 PM »

Thats not from the onion?

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2005, 12:36:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
You guys all seem so smart.

How can a guy go outside a restaurant and shoot someone, run inside after and...

No murder weapon is every found. Do you not think that every rooftop, garbage, catch basin etc for 5 blocks around was not searched and searched again after the police arrived?

Did they find gunpowder on his cloths and hands? How do you shoot someone so close range and not get totally covered in gun powder residue.

No witnesses.

He may have hired someone to kill her but he did not pull the trigger and did not act alone.

The jury did what it could but without a gun how can you say he did it? What he ate the thing afterwards?

The police never found the other person who either acted alone and killed her for his own reasons or did it for Blake. Either way there was no evidence to directly prove Blake did it.

Blake is just fortunate that he's not some schmuck from Modesto. He'd get the death penalty.

john9001 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:09:16 PM »

it was a weak case,poorly done, fire the prosecutor.