Juries
Juror Whose Revelation Forced a Mistrial Will Pay $1,200
Posted Oct 13, 2009 6:02 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A New Hampshire juror who revealed in deliberations that a defendant was a convicted child molester has agreed to pay $1,200 to reimburse the county for expenses related to two days of jury deliberations in the case.
After revealing the defendant’s former conviction, juror Paul Christiansen of Danbury said he had no regrets, the Concord Monitor reports. He was originally charged with contempt of court, but he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and agreed to pay the money, the story says.
The defendant, Timothy Townsend, will get a new trial on child sexual assault charges because of Christiansen’s revelation.
Post corrected on Oct. 16 to note that this involved a New Hampshire case rather than Connecticut. The Journal regrets the error.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Oct 13, 2009 8:22 AM CST
So, after all the extra hoopla, calling even more media attention to the defendant’s prior conviction, the defendant will get a new trial with new jurors who don’t read the paper or follow the TV or Internet news? I wonder how they will go after that in voir dire. “Mr. Smith, do you read the paper?” “Ms. Jones, do you follow the TV or Internet news?” (Of course, once the questioning makes it obvious that the jury is not supposed to know something that has been reported publicly, nobody will Google it).
Flag this comment
fed up
Oct 16, 2009 4:52 AM CST
Fining jurors? That is a legitimate reason to avoid jury duty.
Flag this comment
Marty
Oct 16, 2009 6:26 AM CST
The story got the state wrong. This happened in New Hampshire and was reported in the Concord (NH) Monitor. And to “fed up’, trying to keep jurors in line, avoiding their own research, is going to be harder and harder in the coming decades. If not sanctions, then what?
Flag this comment
HRB
Oct 16, 2009 7:12 AM CST
Yup. They got the state wrong. Connecticut does not have county government and there is no Concord Monitor, He’s from Danbury, NH not Danbury, CT
Flag this comment
Molly McDonough
Oct 16, 2009 7:26 AM CST
Thanks for the heads up about our error. The post has been corrected.
Flag this comment
sb
Oct 16, 2009 9:03 AM CST
I hear you, McLeod and fed up, but the jury members are given their warnings. The same argument could be made for a person who ignores a “Keep Out - No Trespassing” sign; by putting up the sign, according to your argument, the owner is letting the public know there is probably something in there that is of value or interest inside, so naturally everyone will ignore the sign, even though to do so is a violation of criminal law.
The jury is instructed: “You are not allowed to do your own research; your deliberations will be based only on the evidence presented in trial,” and the rules clearly prohibit the use of prior bad acts.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.