A judge in Kansas declared a mistrial in a rape case after the local paper reported that the suspect had been convicted of fondling a 13-year-old girl in another county and would be facing child pornography charges in both counties.
The outcome of that trial had been already reported in the other county's paper, but the issue was with the local paper because the jurors would be more likely to see the story. But the judge had already ordered the jury not to read the local paper, and the defense lawyer said in the local paper behind all this:
“The problem we had was (the headline) was in bold face, and if (jurors) were even innocently looking through the paper, and it caught their attention, we have a compromised jury.”
The headline on the original A5 story was "Man sentenced to 11 years in sex case."
The one-column subhead was “Same man accused of raping Salina girl, other sex charges.”
So I'm torn. The original story was a matter of public record and the paper had every right to print it. But the suspect is obviously entitled to a fair trial. But the judge did order the jury not to read the paper, so for him to assume they didn't follow those orders (without asking, at that) is strange, right? And the girl who was raped already testified for three hours, and now she's going to have to do it again.
So what do you guys think?
2 comments:
I think the judge should not of assumed that the jury disobeyed his order. Unless he saw that mornings paper in one of thier hands. So when he ruled a mistrial, seemed he did it on his own opinion that the jury was now biased. The local paper could of waited to run that story till after the verdict, but then again Im sure they ran other stories related to this crime that the jury could of read prior. Its getting to the point you can't avoid seeing or hearing the news. I think a mistrial based on issues the judge had was wrong.
People suck!
Post a Comment