Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Senior Barbie Leaves Trial to Bet on Horses...

oh lord. this trial will never go away. Juror #4, or as I like to call her Senior Barbie for her choice of outfits, decided to lie about her father dieing in order to get out of jury deliberations to go to the Breeders Cup. Seriously. I cannot make this up! http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/11/juror-in-stevens-case-my-father-is-not-dead.html Then when she finally appears before the court to answer for her actions she goes batship crazy yapp'n about how her house is bugged, her friends deal drugs, and that she has a pile of lawsuits that she wants to start up.

Is this true? Or is she just acting insane hoping to cover up her gambling addiction or her addiction to horse racing. Can she get in serious trouble for lying to the courts this way? Could this affect the verdict that we came up with?

Did I see this coming? Hell no! Yes, she was slightly off. Quietly reading her Yachting magazines and business journals while most of us played taboo or joked around. Yes, she dressed like a 20 year old barbie doll with bad taste when she was definetly old enough to be my mom, but isn't there always people who dress inapproriately? What Not To Wear would be off the air if there wasn't. But she didn't mumble to herself. She was pretty clean.

Whatever happens next in this little side drama, I hope Salmmy's lawyers don't use this as an excuse to get our verdict thrown out. She had nothing to do with our deliberation. We had to start over when I stepped in to cover for her.

And to Salmmy's lawyers I'd like to say: "Shakira's hips don't lie and neither do the facts. Salmmy was found guilty based on the facts, and beyond reasonable doubt."


caribousteaks said...

It makes one wonder about our courts and judges when this sort of activity is let go without even a slap on the wrist. Its contempt of court surely! The term "jury by ones peers", is thrown into question when that jury is willing to lie and the judge of the case willing to uphold that lie. I wonder what the demographic make up of the rest of the jury was? So inclined to make radical generalized comments about politicians too? Does this mean a decision based on emotion and preconceived notions rather than facts and circumstance? I hope more details of who the jury was is forthcoming

Anonymous said...

I wonder if she was handicapping the verdict as well. This seems to be one ol' broad who could have used a night in the slammer. It wouldn't have done a damn bit of good in teaching her anything, but I wager everyone else would have felt better about it.