March 28, 2004
Holdout Granny Juror
The wacky juror in the Tyco case, who may (this is Gothamist's poor, unfounded speculation based on nothing) be the the one juror causing the jury dissension, gets the Post treatment today. The Post, who had been calling her, "the holdout granny," reports that 79 year-old Ruth Bennett Jordan is, among other things, listed in the Social Register and described (by a friend) as being "self-centered, 'paranoid' and 'loves to be contrary.'" Yeah, that's pure gold for any trial lawyer, when a juror flashes the "OK" sign to you. Gothamist believes in the American justice system, and if a mistrial is found, because of the squabbling "poisonous" Tyco jury, then that's that. But we think that the muckety mucks that used Tyco funds as their personal saving account are worse than lawyers.
If they make a TV movie about this, Angela Lansbury would play the granny juror, and it would turn out she was right all along or something.
|
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Why did the prosecution let this old crank on the jury? If she's so incredibly obstinate, as the Post suggests, it's hard to believe she could pass for a well-socialized person.
BTW, this would never have happened if Tyco was a Manhattan DA prosecution - Morgy would have spotted her coming a mile away. The Colony Club refused membership to his mother - caused a big row in the day, and Eleanor Roosevelt quit in protest.
Life has taught me old people are extremely stubborn and cannot be swayed once they have made a decision they believe in. The only thing to can do now is dismiss her from the jury for being unyielding and pigheaded, or declare a mistrial immediately.
Sterling, ummm, isn't the trial IS a New York D.A. prosecution.
ugh. typo. should read "ummm, the trial IS a New York D.A. prosecution." sorry.
You are correct - I just looked it up. What the hell is the Manhattan DA doing prosecuting this? And Morgy must be getting senile.
my guess. The US Atty's declined prosecution. Just a guess though.
The reason that this case is in state court rather than federal court is because -- from what I can see -- the charges are not securities fraud, but more along the lines of embezzlement. I don't know exactly what the counts are, though, so I can't tell for certain.
As for the holdout granny -- after reading today's article in the Times about what the issue actually is, she appears to actually be the sole sane person. Or at least the sole one who has a grasp on what mens rea actually is, and the distinction between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact. The potshots against her in the tabloids were gratutitous. Look, as much as you might want to nail these people, it appears that the prosecution did a lousy job w/r/t intent.
I think she is a crazy old lady and if she was right in the head she wouldn't have flashed the okay sign. On the other hand though you shouldn't be publishing her name and I think if a conviction comes now it is very likely it will be over turned later. They need to call a misstrial and do it all over again. Sucks...
I think the juror was bought. It's not like the defendants couldn't afford to toss her a few million out of the almost 700 million dollars they "were entitled to". I feel bad about Martha. She lost several hundred million dollars over what, a couple hundred thousand in stock? And now she has to go to jail for lying about something that she was never even charged with.
Talmudic law