Alternate juror needed in Jaeger trial
After three days of jury deliberation it was discovered one juror engaged in misconduct. The juror was replaced by an alternate and the deliberation will continue with a review of the testimony. Enlarge video
No verdict in Jaeger trial after day two of deliberation
The jury in the case against Matthew Jaeger has still not reached a verdict after a second day of deliberation. The jury reviewed testimony and police interviews. The third day of deliberation will begin tomorrow. Enlarge video
Testimony ends in Jaeger case
Two weeks of testimony has come to a close, leaving the jury to decide on a verdict in the Matthew Jaeger trial. Enlarge video
Matthew Jaeger: Guilty Verdict
More coverage of the trial of a former Kansas University student accused of beating and kidnapping his ex-girlfriend.
Jaeger Trial Updates, Via Twitter
A Douglas County judge Wednesday morning dismissed a juror for misconduct and appointed an alternate to serve in the Matthew Jaeger trial, but he stopped short of declaring a mistrial in the case.
Jurors will return to work at 9 a.m. Thursday, the third day of deliberations in the kidnapping and aggravated battery trial of the former Kansas University student.
Defense attorneys asked Chief Douglas County District Judge Robert Fairchild to declare a mistrial during a hearing at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday. Attorneys never said specifically why one male juror was accused of misconduct in the case, but the arguments included some clues.
“It’s not like a simple drive-by or reading in a newspaper; the allegations here involved a re-enactment of a material fact in this case,” defense attorney Pedro Irigonegaray said. “And it is very disturbing to think the interests of justice have been put at such jeopardy as a result of this man’s action.”
Irigonegaray said the actions had “been ongoing, since early on in the deliberations of this case. It is difficult for me to not conclude that there has been an impact.”
Jurors are given instructions not to do independent investigations, conduct tests, review media reports or visit the crime scene during a trial.
But Assistant Kansas Attorney General Jason Hart, a prosecutor in the case, said the remainder of the jury acted in a way that indicated that they knew what the dismissed juror did was wrong, “particularly the way the foreperson says the jury has responded to the limited statement provided by that juror.”
Hart said the conduct would not have prejudiced the jury against Jaeger and that one of the alternate jurors should replace the juror instead of a mistrial being declared.
Before Fairchild decided not to grant a mistrial, he dismissed spectators from the courtroom at 10:10 a.m. to question the 11 jurors not accused of misconduct.
About 30 minutes later, jurors resumed their deliberations after the male juror accused of the misconduct was dismissed from the case. The first alternate, a woman, was added to the jury.
She heard all of the evidence but had not been involved in deliberations until Wednesday morning. The jury now consists of seven men and five women.
Prosecutors accuse Jaeger, 24, of severely beating and dragging his ex-girlfriend, who is now 23, from her Lawrence apartment the night of Oct. 9, 2007. Testimony in the trial began July 29, and jurors got the case Monday afternoon. Defense attorneys have said Jaeger was worried for the woman’s safety that night and found her injured and tried to help her after she fell onto a bed railing in her bedroom.
Jurors are deciding whether to convict Jaeger of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, aggravated burglary and making a criminal threat. Jurors also have the option of convicting Jaeger of a simple kidnapping charge instead of aggravated kidnapping.
After the alternate juror took her place, jurors spent part of Wednesday afternoon watching a recording of Jaeger’s ex-girlfriend’s interview with police while she was in the hospital. They also spent nearly two hours in the courtroom listening to court reporters read back to them part of testimony from several witnesses in the trial.
Jurors have asked many questions since they began deliberating, including asking Fairchild on Wednesday about how they determine a “stopping point” in their deliberations.
Fairchild said jurors should “continue to deliberate as long as there’s a possibility that a unanimous verdict can be achieved.”
The judge told jurors they also have the option of reaching a verdict on only some of the charges instead of all four of them.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
meggers (anonymous) says…
Even if a mistrial isn't declared, the door is now wide open for granting an appeal. Sounds like Jaeger's attorney believes he's going to be found guilty, so he's pushing for a mistrial. Stupid juror.
compmd (anonymous) says…
Dear juror, if you are reading, which is not an unreasonable guess to make I suppose, don't try and be a hero. This goes for anyone on any jury. Do your job. Do what you were told. If you go outside of those bounds, your "help" is tantamount to a 5 year old on amphetamines in a crystal shop with a baseball bat. You are not a lawyer, you are not a police officer, you are not a detective. You are a juror.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
I wonder if performing a "rear naked chokehold" on all your friends and family at the weekend barbeque to see if they pass out constitutes 'independent investigation.'
rooster (anonymous) says…
sheesh! The juror in question should be forced to re-enact the kick to the groin.
xfactor (anonymous) says…
Whew, that was close!
madman (anonymous) says…
If the defense says it was "ongoing" since early on, why didn't they try to get him off the boat sooner?
average (anonymous) says…
Certainly room for an appeal, but one was a certainty no matter what. Pedro and his merry band of paid expert witnesses would prefer a mistrial of course. The credit card isn't maxed out yet.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
Marion, if there's a mistrial in the future, it is the result of juror misconduct, not a poor assessment of the strength of the case in chief by the prosecution.
BTW, if there is a mistrial in the future, it's the Asst. AG's future, not the DG Co. DA, Branson.
If a mistrial is declared as a result of juror misconduct, both parties should be really irritated as jurors are specifically and repeatedly instructed NOT to engage in the kind of conduct alluded to above. They are to make their decision solely based upon the facts and evidence presented at trial and are to avoid conversations with 3rd parties, all sources of the media, etc. They are not even permitted to discuss the evidence with other jurors until deliberations begin. IMHO there should be sanctions levied against any juror acting in such an irresponsible, reckless and specifically prohibited manner.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
B_C, that's exactly what I was wondering.
jcstepmom28 (anonymous) says…
bad_dog (Anonymous) says… "IMHO there should be sanctions levied against any juror acting in such an irresponsible, reckless and specifically prohibited manner."
AGREED!!!
Fatty_McButterpants (anonymous) says…
Madman, if the defense waits until the case goes to the jury there is a much better chance of getting a mistrial declared. If the judge is made aware of it near the beginning of the trial, they sub in an alternate and move on. Yeah, it's shady.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
so which part of *no* did this guy not get?
probably much better he's off the jury anyway.
though PedroI says behavior was continuing throughout, maybe he just became aware of it.
Marioni, what a legal expert right thar! I mean he should be the judge presiding!
***
I have no sympathy for this juror.
will he be fined, or given some kind of punishment as an example to others?
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
Fatty and Madman, the far more likely response is that neither the defense nor the prosecution had any inkling about any juror misconduct until it was reported this morning. Then, the judge inquired of the jurors and the full picture emerged. Unless and until the jurors report something fishy to the court, neither side knows what is going on in the jury room.
VTHawk (anonymous) says…
before you all jump TOO harshly on the juror (though it seems that he was severely in the wrong), remember that he is a human being forced to give up his time to sit on this jury.
If you start fining jurors (or otherwise punishing them) for misconduct that is not explicitly illegal (like taking a bribe), then you are going to keep even more good people from serving on juries. If a mistrial is ultimately declared, then further shame on the juror. However, penalties from the court would cause more problems than it would solve IMAO.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Well, that little skirmish chewed up much of half a day. Getting a new juror up to speed on deliberations....a little more time. (alternates are held separately and do not participate in jury deliberations until called)
I wouldn't be surprised if Friday isn't the first reasonable day to look for a possible verdict. And Monday or Tuesday is not out of the question.
Keith (anonymous) says…
Drat! Pedro missed out on a second payday for this trial.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
And yes, when you start depending on Marion for your understanding of the law or procedure, you might as well consult him for your brain surgery, because his knowledge of both topics is about the same.
Jurors don't always understand what they can and can't do. These things happen. That is why alternates exist. And when Marion says a "mistrial is in the DA's future" (whatever that means) it would also be in the future of the judge and defense counsel.
"Shoulda plead out?" What's your point, Marion? The prosecution has a strong case. Defendant does not appear contrite, does not want to see jail, and has money for a vigorous defense. Mutually exclusive perspectives. Hence, no plea. But I forgot about your expertise.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
Thanks, Knucklehead!! Geez, just do what you are TOLD so the victim can get justice!! Now this creepy dude is going to have appeal after appeal around this matter.
Thanks a lot. I hope someone publishes your name.
ModSquadGal (anonymous) says…
"Reenactment of a material fact of the case..." ???? What does that mean? He reenacted something Jaeger did and then told the other jurors about it?
alm77 (anonymous) says…
From twitter: "Jurors also asked about what would constitute a "stopping point" for them in deliberations" Isn't the stopping point when they've all agreed?? or are they saying one of them is holding out and isn't going to change his/her mind?? AAaaaack!! The suspense is killing me (and everyone else I'm sure)!!
dulcinea47 (anonymous) says…
Modsquadgirl- in a nutshell, yes.
Alm77- one would hope the stopping point would be them agreeing, but it does sound like they're asking at what point is it a hung jury. YIKES.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Folks, breath in deeply. I know a little secret:
If there is a conviction on the primary charges, this thing was already headed to appeal regardless of this juror incident. The defendant apparently has the money to appeal, so he will.
If the judge has done his job correctly in interpreting the law in his various rulings throughout the trial, including this juror issue, the appeal will be denied. This is how the system is supposed to work, and does work.
OK, resume your end-of-justice-in-the-world speculation.
dulcinea47 (anonymous) says…
But, if there's a mistrial, doesn't he go free until the next trial? If he's convicted he's in prison.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Good question. I don't think it's automatic. A large bail could be set, or he could be deemed a flight risk. Everyone needs to relax, quit speculating and let the jury deliberate.
compmd (anonymous) says…
ebyrdstarr says:t
"the far more likely response is that neither the defense nor the prosecution had any inkling about any juror misconduct until it was reported this morning."
Bingo. Knowingly withholding information from the court about someone violating a judicial order is a bad career move for an attorney and a surefire way to seriously piss off a judge.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"before you all jump TOO harshly on the juror (though it seems that he was severely in the wrong), remember that he is a human being forced to give up his time to sit on this jury."-VTHawk
VTHawk, why should we as a society refuse to consider penalizing behavior that endangers the integrity of our judicial system? Such behavior also wastes the time and $$ already invested in this trial to say nothing of the additional monetary expenditures necessary to retry the case.
With respect to your observation regarding the sanctity of the juror's time, apparently it wasn't so precious he couldn't afford to expend a little of it investigating and reenacting the crime despite receiving numerous admonitions from the Court as well as specific instructions why such conduct is banned. That is why I believe sanctions should be levied. He directly ignored the Court and potentially jeopardized the outcome of this trial forever. Sanctions don't have to be monetary in nature. Make him pick up trash around downtown or serve meals at LINK for a week-whatever.
Jurors are not "forced" to sit on juries. If you have a reasonable excuse or a conflict such as knowing a party to the litigation or perhaps a witness, you can and likely will be excused from duty. Even if you were hypothetically "forced" into jury duty, is that a viable excuse for directly violating the rules designed to ensure a fair trial? However, please keep in mind that little four letter word I previously stated... D U T Y. It is your civic duty as an American citizen to appear when summoned and serve if selected. Is it fun? Probably not. Do you receive a lot of compensation for your time? No. Is it your responsibility as a citizen? Absolutely. That duty should be carried out with the utmost respect for the rules. It's the right thing to do for everyone involved and we should do so willingly.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
I'm sure pedro will get his second paycheck via appeals processes
agilla (anonymous) says…
still wondering why the national media hasn't picked this story up...
JimmyJoeBob (anonymous) says…
ModSquadGal
You meanto say the juror reenacted someting Jaeger allegedly did.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Personally, I'm glad to hear the alternate was a woman and the juror who was dismissed was a man. I am not, I repeat, not saying that men wouldn't be or aren't appalled or horified by this case. But I think that women would take this case more personally.
JimmyJoeBob (anonymous) says…
Marion the defense always wants a mistrial for any reason. The longer they can draw things out the more likley victims will move on or a key witness will disappear or die etc. With this family's money the chance for appeal was 100% with or without the Juor misconduct. Bottom line is the reason we have alternates is for this very reason. Jurors are replaced all the time.
Keith (anonymous) says…
"Personally, I'm glad to hear the alternate was a woman and the juror who was dismissed was a man. I am not, I repeat, not saying that men wouldn't be or aren't appalled or horified by this case. But I think that women would take this case more personally."
Of course, none of the above is reason to convict the defendant, only the facts as presented by the state.
YOUNGCSI (anonymous) says…
"The errant juror was replaced but the information which that juror imparted to the jury cannot be removed, hence a tainted jury is in place."
Just because there was one juror that couldn't follow the rules, doesn't mean he "tainted" the whole jury. This is no different than if someone in the court room were to blurt out something about Jaeger's past-or whatever- and the judge to tell them to disregard the statement. They simply have to disregard whatever info this other juror had and move forward.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"DA, shmee-ay; you know very well indeed that the use of the term “DA” referred to the prosecutor, so thake that nonsense down the road."-who else but Marion...
"thake"? Is that a speech impediment or the Gray Goose talking?
Marion, I mentioned it simply because I was concerned you actually recognized the difference-despite your experiences with Vern Miller and all.
"Yes, an appeal is almost always standrad following any conviction but there are now realy good grounds for overturning a conviction, should the jury return one".
A sage (albeit rife with misspellings) observation from our own in house law professor. As noted above by other posters, Jaeger was going to appeal this case if convicted, regardless of the basis for the appeal. Given the length of imprisonment at stake as well as the defendant's resources, this case was on the path to appeal from the onset.
"A tainted jury is a pretty good reason to overturn a conviction." Really?
"The errant juror was replaced but the information which that juror imparted to the jury cannot be removed, hence a tainted jury is in place."
Well, unfortunately for you Marion, Judge Fairchild has overruled you. You may be seated, but I must warn you that no further outbursts will be tolerated.
"Had Pedro not wanted a mistrial, he would not have asked for one." Hmm, let me ponder that for a nano second or two. Is that a double negative? OK-got it. If Pedro wanted a mistrial he would have (and did) ask for one.
I'll leave the rest of the analysis for Boston Corbett.
xfactor (anonymous) says…
Marion, proof read your posts or find someone who can.
YOUNGCSI (anonymous) says…
they can't still be at break!!
xfactor (anonymous) says…
Pleace dont take tht teh wrong way; its mearly a suggstion.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Marion says: "In a plea agreement, jail time as well as some form of financial restituion (Seems to me that there is some weath hiding in the wings.) could be negotiated. . ."
_____________________________________
Not.
Marion, you really are a total idiot. I hope new readers figure this out quickly. Despite your experience in the bankruptcy courts, you fail to grasp the fundamental distinction between criminal and civil law.
kublackbird (Meryl Carver) says…
Boston did you mean to say that a defendant's sentence and restitution cannot be part of a plea agreement? Because (if that's what you did intend) that's just wrong.
As part of a plea agreement the State can agree to recommend a certain sentence and/or restitution amount in exchange for a defendant's guilty plea. While the agreement is not binding on the judge at sentencing, such agreements generally do carry at least some weight.
If those things weren't part of a plea agreement, why would any sane person ever voluntarily plead guilty instead of going to trial?
(And I *am* a criminal attorney.)
average (anonymous) says…
Good luck trying to seat a unprejudiced jury now, if it's hung/mistrial.
xfactor (anonymous) says…
Yawn
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
For all of you who are concerned with a mistrial, keep in mind, just because the defense asks/demands one, doesn't mean he gets one. That's the judge's call. It may be reason for an appeal down the road, but it seems to me that if the judge didn't rule a mistrial when he removed the juror, then he isn't likely to do so if there is a conviction.
aletheia (anonymous) says…
I have a feeling, based on the twitter updates, that the jury is struggling with the kidnapping charge. This one has the most teeth and length of time that can be sentenced if convicted.
Eride (anonymous) says…
I can always count on Marion and the other prominent "lawyers" in this town to give me a good laugh when I need one.
Apparently almost none of you even understand what an appeal actually is much less how it works.
One thing I will agree with though is the sentiment that serving as a juror sucks but it is necessary that citizens do so and take the responsibility of it seriously. The jury system is an integral part of the adversarial process which is something all citizens benefit from. Although I must admit... Thankfully because of my career path I will never have to serve but I would take it seriously if that weren't the case.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
Is any one else having a problem with yahoo logging out on them.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
aletheia - I'm afraid that might be the case. Which would really suck, since I believe it has the severest sentance. But if the victim said she was taken against her will and the neighbors who called the police said she appeared to be taken against her will, that would certainly hold more weight with me than the word of the two accused, even if Carroll wasn't actually charged with anything.
And something that just occurred to me: Jaeger was around 22 when this happened. How long had he been in Lawrence at KU? I would think HE would know how to get the hospital and could direct Carroll. Hmmmmm...
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
momma - I'm having all sorts of computer problems today. Plus, someone else put our office phones on night-setting, which rolls all calls into MY voicemail. I couldn't figure out how I kept getting so many voicemails when the phone wasn't even ringing.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
I love how Marioni actually thinks he's more expert in judging a jury's fitness to continue after such an incident, better than *Judge Fairchild!*
LMAO!
***
Personally, I'm glad to hear the alternate was a woman and the juror who was dismissed was a man. I am not, I repeat, not saying that men wouldn't be or
aren't appalled or horified by this case. But I think that women would take this case more personally.
---uh, you probably support Judge Sotomayor's kind of prejudice, too?
men have mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, beloved women in their lives.
it used to be that if your female relative had something like this happen to her, you and some of your other male relatives would go and pay a guy like Jaeger [if he did do it, and I'm convinced he did] a brief and friendly visit. a visit that would leave jaeger with some things to remember the visit for a while.
no, I'm not excited that the gender mix on the jury has changed. in fact, I think I recall a bit of research indicating that female jurers tended to view female victims more harshly, and more responsible for their victimization, than did male jurors.
I could be wrong, and I think that was valid research. sadly, these female jurors were 'putting themselves' into the shoes of the victim and judging her negatively more often than male jurors.
aletheia (anonymous) says…
Jersey_Girl, I agree, but it only takes one juror to throw a wrench in the process. I know all of this is just speculation, but I can't help being concerned. I also know that each charge will spell out several parameters that need to be met in order to be guilty of that charge. Maybe that's what they're trying to clarify. Hard to say ...
Awhile back on another thread, I was thinking the same thing. If Jaeger could provide directions to All Stars, the victim's apartment and a pizza joint, driving to the hospital would have been a piece of cake.
BTW, I think Sunflower is having problems with their internet connection. My internet connection keeps getting lost, too.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
If they are re-listening to the statements of the impartial witnesses, I would say that bodes well for the kidnapping charge sticking. There are too many facts that support it compared to the defendant and his accomplice's statements:
1) woman being dragged out of her apartment against her will
2) victim's apparent fear of jaeger in the car when stopped by police
3) evident contradiction between victim's stated desire to go to the hospital and the route taken by the car carrying the victim
So to recap, victim was afraid of the men she was with, was with them against her will, and was being taken to a place other than her desired destination and the destination that makes the most sense with the "trying to help" story.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Huh, interesting, gnome. But women can be harsh critics, especially of other women. I can see that in perhaps a rape trial where maybe some of the more conservative women thought she "asked" for it either by what she was wearing or by her behavior, but in this case, I just don't see how anyone could possibly blame the victim or find fault with anything she did. What happened to her, and I don't even have all the details, is my worst fear. A few months ago, I had a dream that I woke up and there was a man standing at the end of my bed with a large knife. It got pretty graphic from there. It was so realistic that when I woke up, I was afraid to open my eyes because I was afraid the man would be standing there. When I finally did open my eyes, I was afraid to turn on a light in case someone was in my apartment. I'm not normally a paranoid person, but that dream was so realistic and horrible, it was a long time before I could sleep with the lights off. My point to all that is that I can only imagine being on that jury, hearing the victim tell her story, seeing the photos of her injuries, listening to the testamony of the doctors who treated her and finding him guilty.
HW (anonymous) says…
kublackbird, or other legally educated folks;
If Jaeger is found guilty and appeals, does that mean he is cosidered guilty until (and only if) he wins on appeal? Is there really a chance for him to bond out while they appeal? It seems to me that once a jury finds you guilty, you should be considered guilty until you prove otherwise. Just curious.
Tab (anonymous) says…
I am relieved that the jury is wanting to review testimony & video that will reflect truth. Doesn't sound like they are putting much emphasis on the subjective "expert theories".
From the very beginning, the whole reason the cops ever pulled the car over was due to the neighbor calling 911 to advise that she had seen the victim being forced into a car against her will. Doesn't that really say it all?
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
I'm just trying to be positive and believe that the jury will find him guilty on all counts. To me, the things that they have asked to review makes me think they believe he's guilty.
And gnome, if this girl had been my sister, I would have paid him a friendly visit myself. I'm the oldest of 8 and no one f***s with my family. I'm not saying her family should have; they let the judicial system handle things and I hope it does them justice.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
Okay, off topic for a moment. Ironhorse and others that find Marion so irritating, why don't you just ignore him? He doesn't particularly bother me, not because I agree with him but because I don't bother to take him seriously. I just can't believe how many of you let him get under your skin.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
HW, yes there is such a thing as an appeal bond. The judge can set an appeal bond if a defendant asks, but the judge doesn't have to. If the district court judge denies an appeal bond, the defendant can then ask the appellate court, but it's unlikely the appellate court would grant a bond where the district court did not. Typically, the amount of the appeal bond is higher than that of the pre-trial bond, but I don't really know much about Judge Fairchild's particular record on appeal bonds.
If Jaeger is convicted, he's guilty, but if an appeal bond is set and his family is able (and willing) to meet that bond, imposition of the sentence is stayed until he loses the appeal or he gets his bond revoked.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Ironhorse, Marion is a perfect example of what's known as an "internet troll". They've been around since the days of usenet 15 years ago (and more likely got their start during the days of the old BBS's before even that). Look up the term and you'll see what I mean. And on the contrary, LJW instead of banning him, glorified him and gave him his own little picture in the paper. He hasn't gotten over that one yet. While you're at it look up the term "sock puppet". I'm sure Marion has made use of a few of those as well.
BlackVelvet (anonymous) says…
"through this entire trial the comments here have been pretty amazing.
some experts, some opinions, some curious, etc…
but everyone was getting along. respecting each other.
Then along comes Marion and it all goes to hell.
When is Kealing going to wise up and ban this POS?"
Ironhorse, Marion is a lot like Phred Phelps. You aren't going to have much luck getting rid of him. So, just ignore him. Scroll past anything he has to say. It's tough, but he knows he's pushing your buttons and (probably) gets off on it.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Believe me there's more annoying people than Marion on these boards (alot of them have been banned). Sometimes he gets an idea in his head and it's rather difficult to convince him otherwise, but unlike a real troll there's usually a give and take with the guy. Which is why Marion doesn't bother my (90% of the time). Just read and move on.
igby (anonymous) says…
Gurnsey_Girl:
Branson, was Jaeger's lawyer before, so add up the years Branson's been DA, which is about 5 years, subtract 2, and that gives you 3. Fifth grade math. Now stop asking really good questions or you confuse the jury. Lol.
igby (anonymous) says…
There is a simple logic about the juror that holds true about "trial by peers" (lol).......
I hope no one else tries this at home!
...on any case for that matter!
alm77 (anonymous) says…
I simply skip Marion's posts. I've never really missed any conversational points by doing so. It's not because I find him particularly offensive (of course I wouldn't know it if I did since I don't read him). There is just something about the way he posts (the retype then respond thing especially when it says "Marion says...") that I just can't take the time to decipher, so I skip it.
workinghard (anonymous) says…
Wait a minute, you mean kind of like you would Merrill's posts? I always just skip by those. Someone needs to tell hime more is not always better.
StephanieD123 (anonymous) says…
I just don't understand how any juror could possibly believe Jaeger was tyring to help his ex by pulling her down the stairs by her hair. That should tell any reasonable human being that alone is a crime, not help.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
working, YES!!! hehe I skip those too. One day I was tempted to reply TLDR, but I figured it wouldn't do any good. I do read what Merrill has to say when it's not cut and paste as long as it's not too lengthy.
KS (anonymous) says…
How long is this case going to take? I've seen murder cases take less time.
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says…
well hopefully this case dont take as long as the Yellow house case ...... o wait it was investigated by the Lawrence police Department (who have no over sight) yea it will be at minimum 5 years
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Jersey-girl,
sorry for late reply.
in my next post I'll put up two relevant passages. in the first one, shows that female jurors have more empathy, for victim and perp. does not seem to indicate that female victims wind up on the short end of justice from female jurors. however, is mock trial experimental setting.
second, is the stated experience of female lawyer in a nonamerican legal system, pretty clearly spoken.
I am not including but if you google you'll find these:
female jurors tend to be more accepting of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' pleas, for example. many other refs to imply that women jurors are harder on female victims, but didn't find a lot of actual research on it.
personally I think other, nongender, traits are much more important in who the jurors are.
I'll pm you about that dream. pretty intense, eh?
I suspect that many women have experienced a similar dream at least once.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Dann Cahoon and Dan Gill: "Empathy and Attitudes Toward Men and Women as Predictors of Jurors' Verdicts in Sexual Assault Cases"
abstract
One hundred and ninety-five jury eligible male (98) and female (97) college students were presented with a crime summary and an abbreviated trial transcript
describing a case of sexual assault involving either a male or female defendant and either a male or female victim. Male and female jurors arrived at similar
verdicts. In cases involving male defendants and female victims, females were more likely to convict. Although, this difference was not quite significant.
Female jurors were, however, significantly more empathic than male jurors and had significantly more positive attitudes towards both men and women. This
capacity and these attitudes mediated their decision-making.
headline: women 'tougher' on rape victims
byline: Sophie Goodchild And Louise Jury
body:
helena kennedy qc, the Labour peer and close friend of the Blairs, says that
women jurors are tougher than men on female victims of rape.
The leading human rights lawyer claims that older generations of women in
particular are less sympathetic when sitting on rape trial juries.
"Women are often very hard on their own sex," she said. "Sometimes, if women
arebeing tough, then men defer to women. They (women) take the lead on the
discussions and are very tough on women."
Her comments, based on her own courtroom experience, have divided feminists
and anti-rape campaigners, as well as furthered the debate on how rape trials
are handled.
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says…
Jeager, I just hope the same police officers that were involved with the yellow house case are not involved with your case....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14597829/Tr...
igby (anonymous) says…
Jury trials are stressful on jurors. They go home talk to their wife or girlfriend. They argue the finer points of human reason as to what was talked about in the trial. The wife not being there, may make arguments, and even challenge the juror on specific points. This may have very well happened and a brief replay could of been done just to make a point in their private talks about the case. This is understandable. However, when the juror decided to share this information with the other jurors, this caused a problem and this jurors' opinion was considered contamination and the judge did the right thing. This juror may not of even considered how this may of effected the other jurors or even realized the possible out come. Jurors are not experts their human and have many failings in logic sometimes, as you well know. The jurors question page does not test for being smart or smart-aSS-ed or test for personality traits that may come out in the open session of deliberations.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Please, fresh, this is not the time or place for YH!!
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
I recall a case a couple years ago that ended in mistrial. The charges were refiled and the person was convicter in the subsequent trial.
This situation does not mean the guy will walk on the charges. Even if there was never a problem the convicted can file an appeal. Actually I think there are a couple avenues for appeal.
So what the juror messed up and was replaced . It happens
Many people who are called for jury duty are less than thrilled to be there.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
i'm back dang puter. I am so angry over missing so much yesterday cuz of this thing.I am glad that no mistrial was called and even if there was no tampering every one knows that an appeal is coming if/when he is convicted.
caec (anonymous) says…
Igby, you obviously don't understand the law. It would also be juror misconduct for a juror to go home and talk to "his wife or girlfriend" about the case. Jurors are not to discuss the case with anyone, except fellow jurors DURING deliberations. Love the way you assume all jurors are male too. BTW, I think you are confusing the word of and have, i.e., "a brief replay could of been done".
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
I was on a jury in Douglas county and I have no recollection of:
"Jurors are given instructions not to do independent investigations, conduct tests, review media reports or visit the crime scene during a trial."
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
Jayhawks71, that's really scary because that instruction is given at the beginning of every trial and jurors are reminded in shorter form at every break. According to a New York Times article from this spring, though, huge percentages of jurors are either not understanding the instruction or are just flat ignoring it because over half of surveyed jurors admitted violating it by googling stuff, etc. I do think the instructions need to be strengthened to explain why this is such a big problem.
caec (anonymous) says…
It's not given as an instruction, it is given as an admonition, and it is repeated at every break. Maybe you remember the judge saying, "Remember the admonition"?
Thats_messed_up (anonymous) says…
I bet it was just another Bozo.
StirrrThePot (anonymous) says…
LOL at the Twitter post at 9:05am.
mdfraz (anonymous) says…
First off, the comments about serving as a juror being a civic duty as an American citizen are right on. Instead of a burden, it's a privilege. How many people on the planet can say that they get to be an integral part of their country's justice system? We are so spoiled in this country that instead of being thankful for that opportunity and responsibility we whine and complain about it (at least a lot of people do). Of course, taking time out of your life away from your job or family can be a burden; there is no denying that. That's especially true on a case like this that has stretched over the course of a couple weeks. For that, we owe jurors our thanks, and the courts I've seen have made sure to thank jurors, usually more than once, for their service. That being said, it's extremely important to have people that are willing and able to serve. It's the bedrock of our judicial system, and I for one am glad for it.
Marion, did you ever stop to think that maybe Jaeger didn't want to accept a plea? It's called a plea agreement, meaning both sides must find it acceptable. My guess is that Jaeger really believes he's innocent, and wouldn't agree to admitting that he had done anything wrong. In that case, the prosecution has no choice but to proceed to trial. They can't force someone NOT to request a jury trial if they want it. But I'm sure you know better than the DA's and AG's offices what should have happened.
In my experience, judges generally do a very good job of informing the jury that they are not to conduct any investigation or discuss the case with anyone prior to it being submitted to them for deliberation, and then only with other jurors. Judges generally remind the jury on each break and at the end of the day of that admonition. To the person who said he didn't remember hearing it, I don't know if the judge said it to you or not, but I'd be awfully surprised if he/she didn't. If a juror doesn't listen to the admonition from the court, there's not much the court can do about it.
As for the mistrial issue, KSA 22-3423(1)(c) discusses granting a mistrial if there is "prejudicial conduct, in or outside the courtroom, [that] makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to either the defendant or the prosecution". The "tainting" that may have taken place in this case would have to make it impossible for the trial to proceed without injustice. It appears from the article that the other jurors realized this guy was wrong for what he did/said, and hopefully wouldn't allow him to effect their deliberations. If that's the case, denying the mistrial is the correct action by the judge.
I'm sure I've bored people enough with this long post, so I'll shut up now.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
gdiepenbrock:
Court security office jokingly says to me: "You really need to get a life." #jaegertrial
Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:05:39 AM
gdiepenbrock:
---okay, george why don't you interview the court security officer then? LOL!
hawkergirl (anonymous) says…
Court security office jokingly says to me: "You really need to get a life."
And so do we, I suppose? lol Anyway, thanks for the tweets - we are a curious bunch, aren't we?
StephanieD123 (anonymous) says…
This is just ridiculoius it is taking this long. He is guilty, plain and simple. When the neighbors testified to seeing him pulling her down the stairs by her hair and not showing good intent that tells the whole story. It is a shame that Pedro gets so much wiggle room to fabricate so many different ways the attempted murderer was trying to "help".
Get it over with. He is guilty. Get him behind bars before one of his manic moods kicks in and he attacks someone in the courthouse or I mean Help, sorry.
mdfraz (anonymous) says…
Stephanie, were you there that night? You saw all of this happen? Have you been in the courthouse to hear all of the testimony and the evidence? If not, I realize it is just your opinion, but your comments are very uninformed.
I'm not defending Jaeger by any stretch. However, unless you witnessed the events (which I'm sure you didn't, at least not all of them), or you have been present in the courthouse to hear everything presented, for you to say this is "ridiculous" is, itself, ridiculous. Perhaps the jurors are considering the gravity of the situation and taking their job seriously. I'm guessing most of us prefer they do that and get it right rather than hurry up just so you are satisfied.
StephanieD123 (anonymous) says…
Mdfraz- I respect your perspective. You have no idea who I am. I know more about this than you would GUESS. So with that being said, "ridiculous" is a pretty gray area for you and I understand why you would feel that way.
mdfraz (anonymous) says…
I asked if you were there to witness the entire incident that night. If not, then you don't know all the facts.
I asked if you have watched the entire trial. If you have, great, then your opinion is much more informed than most of us on here. If not, then not as much.
I don't know who you are, you are right. I don't mean to offend you in any way, but my point simply is so many people find it very easy to pass judgment when they don't know the whole story. It appeared that's what you were doing. If not, I apologize.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
what mdfraz said. Both posts.
Except I wouldn't be so reserved in explaining anything to Marion.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
Especially mdfraz @ 9:23 re: mistrial
smitty (anonymous) says…
Stephenie....I know more about this than you would GUESS.....
Keep your ego in check.
Especially if you are
GaDuGi(?sp), family, witness, involved on any level, chill!
mistygreen (anonymous) says…
Well put mdfraz - everyone is entitled to due process. Also I think alot of people have forgotten that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Which why the jury is taking so long. A decision like this cannot be rushed, but in our CSI mentality society - we are always in a hurry to convict as fast as we can. These things are not solved in a hour like TV. I'm glad I'm not on the jury because I know I could not be impartial.
mdfraz (anonymous) says…
B_C, just reciting the statute. I don't do a whole lot of appeals work, but I'm guessing there would be a fairly deferential standard in favor of affirming the trial court's determination that the jury was not tainted and that it was not impossible to proceed without injustice.
Misty, that was my point exactly. If/when the jury says he's guilty, then hell yes, toss his ass in prison and let him rot. BUT, until that point, let's not jump to too many conclusions. I'm guessing/hoping that the jurors realize that even if they think he did it, they are still sending Jaeger to jail for a very long time. That's not something that should be decidely lightly. Taking your time to do it right the first time is infinitely more important than rushing through just to be "done with it". Rushing simply invites mistakes and appealable issues.
ridinthefence (anonymous) says…
Thank you Judge Fairchild. Enough time wasted on this spoiled little creep.
hawkergirl (anonymous) says…
gdiepenbrock - No Tweets? Did you abandon us?
YOUNGCSI (anonymous) says…
maybe he went to get a life. . .
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
gnome - answered. Thanks.
caec - igby has proven his ignorance numerous times during this case. Just ignore him.
jayhawks71 - just because you have no recollection of the those specific instructions being given doesn't mean they weren't. Perhaps you weren't listening or since have forgotten.
ridinthefence - exactly how is the judge wasting time? Both the prosecution and defense were allow the time needed to present the case. It is not the judge that is having a hard time with the deliberations, it is the jury.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
This hurry up and wait it nerve wracking. The victim must be beside herself.
Phogfan86 (anonymous) says…
The longer this deliberation goes on, the more I worry this little sociopath is going to skate.
poppygirl (anonymous) says…
Maybe they are holding out for another Jason's Deli run
aletheia (anonymous) says…
Interesting thread. I totally agree with mdfraz and others who support his opinions. I served as a jury foreman on a much smaller case and felt privileged to do so. The case was about convicting a gentleman for his fifth DUI. If found guilty, he could potentially serve 2+ years behind bars and have his driver's license revoked for several more. I can't remember the exact details of the case anymore. However, I do remember the enormous responsibility I felt while serving on the jury and ensuring the guidelines and instructions were followed. I also remember the burden I felt when the defendent was found guilty. Even though I felt we did a good job of reviewing the evidence as provided and arrived at the appropriate verdict, I couldn't escape the overwhelming feeling of having such a significant impact -- dare I say control -- over another's person's life ...their future. It was an experience that I'll never forget and didn't take lightly.
With Jaeger, if found guilty, I'm sure some members will feel the same way, no matter how justified their verdict may be. Personally, as a citizen of our country, I have the privilege of voicing my opinions and have done so often. :) I think Jaeger is a scum bag who deserves to be incarcerated for a long time. I hope he suffers in a way that he never has before ...the same way the victim has suffered. But, I'm not serving on the jury and am glad they are taking their job seriously. Anything less would be unAmerican.
mdfraz (anonymous) says…
aletheia, you and your fellow jurors are to be commended for your service and your attention to your duty. I hope most people when serving on juries take their responsibility as seriously as you seemed to. And yes, as a juror, especially when you are talking about someone going to jail, you have a power over that person's life at that particular time. Some people can't or won't sit in judgment of another person; generally either a judge or attorney will ask to make sure everyone who may be empaneled would be able to handle that responsibility. That's especially true in a very serious case like this one. That's why I'm glad the jurors seem to be taking their duties seriously and considering the evidence and testimony carefully. There is a lot at stake for everyone involved.
What you, and anyone else who may be a juror in the future, need to remember is that your job isn't really to "punish" the person; that is what the law and the correctional system are for. Your job as a juror is to determine the facts; no more, no less. Although you may know that if you find someone guilty they will go to prison, or in rare cases, may be put to death, you have to realize that your job is simply to weigh evidence. That's easier said than done, but that's what a jury is for. No one on a jury caused the events that gave rise to the trial, and no one on the jury can change what happened.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
aletheia and mdfraz - I have never been on a jury so I don't know how it feels to have make those decisions. But something in both of your last posts made me think of how in some ways it is like being a parent (which I admit I am not), albeit on a far more serious scale. There are ground rules set and you have to determine if they have been broken and call them on it. Sometimes that's hard to do. You know that the person/child didn't really mean to break the law/rules, but they did and there are consequences. Although, obviously, if Jaeger is guilty, this was no accident. Don't ask me what I'm talking about; I'm not sure I even know. I'm just in a morose mood today.
aletheia (anonymous) says…
Thank you and well said, mdfranz. I am a strong advocate for personal accountability and responsiblity in choices made, so it helped that my duty as a juror was so well-defined. It allowed me to be pragmatic. But, as an individual, I still knew that my participation in the judicial process would impact the future of the defendent. He was guilty as charged. My good sense allowed me to be impartial; but my good heart was aware of the impact 12 individuals can have in judging the evidence presented (not the person) and the subsequent effect it had on this man's life. It was feeling I'd never experienced before or since.
Aside from the grave crime that Jaeger has been charged with, which is heinous and despicable, this forum has been a wonderful opportunity to share insights, advocate for victim's rights and learn more about the judicial process in general. I have to echo Kansas_Person's comments on another posting. I'm proud to be part of such a spirited, concerned, and empathetic virtual community, as this thread has offered. I hope, after the trial is over, the victim will hear of the support she's been receiving from strangers during the trial. No matter what the verdict will be, I hope our voices and united front offer some solace for her.
smiles (anonymous) says…
I can't wait much longer....
mdfraz (anonymous) says…
Jersey, I get what you are saying, and I think it's a fair comparison. Even if it's hard to punish your child/a defendant, you know that if the facts show that they did something wrong, they need to be punished. I understand your point.
alethia, the fact that you were able to separate your heart from your mind makes you an excellent example of what a juror should be. In fact, I wouldn't want people on a jury that weren't empathetic enough to think that even if a defendant was clearly guilty that the jurors still felt just a little bit bad that that person was going to prison for a long time. Not trying to be an a** kisser, but I would hope other people who might be jurors in the future would read your take on the experience and try to emulate it.
aletheia (anonymous) says…
Ok, mdfraz, now I'm blushing. Thanks for the compliment. It wasn't necessary, but it's certainly appreciated.
jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says…
We're awaiting a verdict. Updates here as soon as we get them:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug...
Jonathan Kealing
Online editor
anyonelistening (anonymous) says…
what is the sentencing on kidnapping? Now that he is found GUILTY
smitty (anonymous) says…
Kudos to the victim and family/support system for going through this horrendous trial and the prosecutors for the job done. You deserve a rest and I hope this weekend is joyfully rewarding for all of you.
Good expanded coverage JW and all the reporters.
Jaeger's family, consider the mental health issues for Mathew and your family that has been treated since this incident occurred a couple of years ago. None of that was drug out in court but you surely know your son and all of you must continue with the mental health therapy. All of you!
caec (anonymous) says…
anyone listening: that would depend on his criminal history. In Kansas we have sentencing guidelines. They function as a grid based on severity level of the crime and the defendant's criminal history. Kidnapping is a severity level 3 crime. The defendant can have a criminal history falling from an "A" to "I". "A" being the most severe, a person with 3 or more person felonies and "I" being the least severe, someone with one misdemeanor. Inside each box there are three numbers, the mitigated, standard, and aggravated. On this charge, as an "I" he would get anywhere from 55 months to 61. Of course, the prosecution filed a motion to depart from these quidelines, so that would affect the sentence if the judge granted that.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
!!!
so, if my math is right, min ten years? then the prosecution is seeking to get punishment above the guidelines.
MDFraz, thanks, very well said.
I know Pedroi will space this out, but I am glad for this conviction on three counts. send a message to other domestic violence perps. get jaeger off the street for a long time, yes put him in jail now, right on.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
oh, to clarify, the "ten years" I meant for total on all three charges.
***
Smitty,
you were quite helpful bringing many very good human details, thanks.
Jurors, you just did very hard work. go home and put your feet up! you've earned our community's gratitude, and a good rest. God bless you all.
Jersey_Girl (anonymous) says…
mdfraz - it would be interesting to know if he had a juvenile record and if he had ever been, let's say rough, with previous girlfriends. I've never met Jaeger but his actions outside of the ones for which he was convicted creep me out. Trying to bribe a cop with $20 to take him after the stop after all that BS about his concern for the vicitm. Why not the hospital? The amazingly blatant lie that the blood he had on his clothes was because he chewed his fingernails. I do believe that criminal behavior is a mix of both nature and nuture and I don't know what his childhood was like, but it certainly wasn't living in some slum. I believe he is inately evil. Normally, I'd say evil is an excessively strong word, and there are so many details of this case I'm missing, but what I do chills me. There is something seriously innately wrong with Matthew Jaeger.