[ad_1]
This Queen's judge apparently likes her jurors – and dry cleaning – to be suspended.
Supreme Court Justice Michael Aloise, who surprisingly blocked the jury's decision in the case of Karina Vetrano's murder after a day of deliberations, took advantage Wednesday of the unexpected pause that was won by withdrawing his decision.
The race was launched when one of these jurors revealed to the Post that several members of the committee wanted to continue to weigh down the charges against Chanel Lewis – accused of sexually assaulting and strangling Vetrano, 30, on a jogging trail 2016 – when the forewoman sent a note to Aloise to tell her that she was in a stalemate.
"We were not all in agreement to put an end to the situation," said the juror, who requested anonymity.
"Some of us wanted to think a little more about it. This note was sent and people were not ready to stop it. People felt that there could have been more deliberations. "
Aloise would not say why he did not push the jury of 12 jurors to go back and deliberate further – what legal experts have termed a routine move.
"I'm sorry, I can not say anything," the lawyer told a reporter with a smile as he stepped out of a car in front of his house in Astoria with dry clothes hangers and a gym bag. Nike slung over his shoulder.
"Have a happy Thanksgiving. God bless you."
Aloise stunned Vetrano's family and most other observers on Tuesday after being declared buried in the high-profile case without first asking the committee to go back and try to resolve their differences, a standard court practice known as "Allen Charge".
And the juryman reached by the post stated that the panel was barely irremovable.
The jurors agreed that there was not enough evidence to convict Lewis for sexual assault. At one point, seven jurors felt that he was not guilty of murder, while five found him guilty, the juror said.
"We all agreed that we did not have enough evidence to charge him with sexual assault and we were looking at the murder. Everyone had doubts, "said the juror.
"Seven of us went to not guilty and five of us to guilt for murder. After some of us asked to review the video of the confession, we voted again and it was in the opposite direction. Seven convicted and five not guilty.
At that time, the forewoman sent a note saying that the jurors were divided – even though at least four of them opposed sending the message, the juror said.
"The note that was sent to the judge – we were not all agreed to finish it where it ended." the [forewoman] decide to send a note to ask for help and it is said that she absolutely can not help us – continue and see if we could change the mind – and the note a when even been sent.
"Many people were unhappy that the note was sent to the judge at the time. Some of us wanted to think a little more about it. This note was sent and people were not ready to stop it. People thought that there could have been more deliberation – in the same way that two people changed their minds after watching the video, "said the juror.
"Some of us were also shocked, like what just happened? It was upsetting. I'm not going to say I lost my time, but I feel it would have taken longer, "said the juror.
"It was a little traumatic for me because I felt it was like a tragedy and that I really wanted justice done."
Veteran lawyers, too, were surprised that Aloise, who has been a judge since 1999, did not send them back to deliberate.
"I've never seen [a mistrial] arrive without an Allen charge. Never. Allen's charges are working normally, "said defense attorney Sally Butler, a prosecutor in Queens for 15 years.
"Every time you receive this note, it's the first thing the judge does. There was definitely something in place.
Human Rights lawyer Ron Kuby agreed that the result was "unheard of" given the short duration of deliberations. "In my experience, the first stalemate never blocks the jury, except in the case of physical violence. [among jurors] or other foreign reasons, "said Kuby.
The panel had deliberated only one hour Monday and 12 hours Tuesday, after hearing a mountain of evidence against Lewis.
"Given the number of deliberations over the length of the trial, it was not a particularly lengthy deliberation," noted Kuby.
The Queens Attorney's Office said he would try Lewis again.
"No one has seen this scenario so quickly. Could there be a trial in error? Absolutely. If it was in three days, would it be surprising? Not at all, "said a source close to the trial.
"What annoys people is the speed with which it was done."
Butler said a suspended jury was also giving the defense a boost at the second trial "because you have a much better ability to then determine where the weakness is."
"Redoing it is a disadvantage for the prosecution," she said. "Now the defense lawyers already know what the witnesses will say. If the witnesses are messing up, they can say, "Wait a second, you've said that before".
Other reports by Larry Celona and Kenneth Garger
Source link
