montfreds blog

A blog about Politics.
About montfred


Member Since:
May 22, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 20, 2009
Profile Views:
3207
Blog Views:
12333
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Trent Lott called Obamas SCOTUS nominee in 1998.
Top U.S. military officer pushes Guantanamo closing
Powell To Answer Right-Wing Critics on Face The Nation
Cheney Lost to Bush
I take it all back Dick!
Hse. Spkr. Pelosi claims CIA mislead her about Torture Methods
The President's Weekly Address: Credit Card Reform
The AG's conundrum and torture
Tools to help you face the economic meltdown.
Obama French Town Hall Meeting
Archives
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
Links

U. S. Constitution
Bill of Rights
Register to Vote

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


montfred - > montfreds blog -> Marylee v. Juror #309
Marylee v. Juror #309

Marylee offered up a column, in which she wrote that the juror member, known as #309, (of the Brothers trial), perhaps took his cue to basically recluse himself from serving on the jury, from the “...Rev. Jesse Jackson, who, after learning last year that a black stripper had accused Duke University lacrosse players of rape, promised to pay her college tuition whether her story proved true or not.

The fact is that Jackson told The Associated Press that his organization is committed to making sure the 27-year-old divorced mother of two will never again "have to stoop that low to survive."

Maybe, Marylee has something, both, were kind acts.  The woman was stripping for money, I hear stripping pays pretty well, but I guess Jesse felt that if she had this help from his “Rainbow/Push Coalition,” which he offered, would offer her more choices, and a better chance of “making something” of herself. A hand up, if you will.

When the jurist decided to go and discuss the inner turmoil  he was in (he later described it as being an 'no-win situation', one where he would have  to choose between either selling a brother down the river or letting a letting a murderer get away.”

Let’s try a hypothetical theory, and consider that#309 was asking for a hand up, let’s say at the begining of the trial, he found himself  seated on the panel, believing that  he would be fair; but he wouldn’t let the jury convict a man just for being ‘black on trial’.

But, things get ugly, and soon every time he looks at Brother, he sees, a black man. A black man who, has become covered in the blood of his own family; and #309, looks over at Brothers, again and sees only red.

He can’t look at Brothers anymore, so he goes up to a co-jurist, but it had to be one, that #309 respected, and believed would make a good leader, for the panel after #309s was gone.

After a little chit-chat, #309, asks the other jurist to, ‘help me, I have to get out of that bloody mess’ going on in the courtroom, and then he spills out his guts.  When called into the Judge's chambers, #309 doesn't lie and say that he has already made up his mind, and he doesn't deny the other jury members accusations.  He is freed to go home and try to forget the whole thing ever happened, and then, now freed to read the whole paper again, reads Marylee's column, and cries.

I think both the Rainbow Coalition and Juror #309 both, did a good thing.  Marylee did a bad thing,  but then as Marcella McMahon wrote,  "The true test of a persons importance is not what he has, but how she treats the souls around him.


Posted in these Groups:
Topics: Marylee Shrider, Brothers trial
posted by montfred on Sunday, June 3, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 112 times
5 comments from 5 users

1

posted by possummomma on Jun 3, 2007 at 01:56 PM
I have to say that I found the article by Marylee to be a bit unnecessary.  I mean; If someone knows that they cannot be impartial, for whatever reason, then they should do exactly what juror #309 did.  It's really no one elses business why this person didn't think they could be impartial.  If it was race, so what?  I would rather have someone admit their fault (racism, if that was the case) and do the right thing than have them sit on a jury when they have already formed their opinion.   Racism should not be celebrated - but, if Marylee, and others, would've let this citizen, who actually SHOWED UP for jury duty, do what he/she needed to do to recuse themself, then what does it matter?  It seems that this juror isn't the one making this a public "race" issue... this juror was being incredibly honest in opposition to being politically incorrect.   I'm not condoning racism,...I'm saying that if you know you're prejudice and you do the right thing (excuse yourself), then you should be applauded for the attempt to do the right thing.
posted by redkernhero on Jun 3, 2007 at 02:14 PM
Your excuse is no better than Marylee's, but it fits my views. White jurors s we all know are , honest objective an without a racist bone in their bodies, especially those from eastern Kern County and these from Bakersfield and west of 99.
And you simply cannot  blame the white jurors for finking, that is what they are supposed to do in a kKern county case involving a Black juror, and we all praise them for that. As for the judge, his informant probably did not get enough credit for being a super snitch, every judge should have at least one. This is not to criticize Kern Justice as white people we are entitled to all the advantages to prove how much better we are than Blacks. The only bothersome thing about this case is that the jury did not tale enough time to do their duty, it made it looked contrived and preordained, which we all know is not true, but than may be the had trouble with the judges instructions about there not being any reasonable doubt in this case, it was a plain case of just hang the scalp on the wall. God we are fair!!
posted by OldBlue56 on Jun 3, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Panfoolio, what do you mean "we" when you say white people? Or do you now consider Hispanics the same as whites. Just curious?
posted by anonymous on Jun 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Pan, you do a disservice to your own cause. You want to fight racism with racism. Get over it. You weren't qualified to get any position other than picking up trash along the freeway. It's not racism that held you back,  it's your incessant whining.
posted by montfred on Jun 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
anony., please don't use my blog, for off discussion topics, thanks.
1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement