Jackson Free Press

While Mayor Frank Melton sat in City Council, his cheeks sunken and his face haggard, Judge Tomie Green issued some unwelcome news to the jurors who will decide the mayor's fate on gun charges this week.

"I'm going to tell you something you haven't heard before, and I want to be sure that all of you understand," Green began. "Go home and pack a bag that will last you for three days. Anyone have a problem with that?"

The jury pool answered with a groan. Green made her announcement to five panels consisting of 12 potential jurors each. Only 14 from the total will be selected for the jury.

One juror stood and said: "Your honor, I have two 7-year-old sons I have to care for in the evenings. My husband works the night shift, so there's no one else to watch them."

"I'm so sorry," Green replied.

Two more women talked about needing to care for their kids, after which Green said: "If you are chosen to serve on the jury, you will have to make other arrangements. ... It is never convenient for a jury to be sequestered. It is a criminal case, and it is a serious case. I have thought long and hard about doing this. Believe me, it isn't fun for any of us. ... Half of you probably have reasons why it will be difficult for you to be sequestered, but I'm going to rely on your ability to plan. If you had to spend the next three days in the hospital, I'm sure you would find a way to make other arrangements. ... I don't want to send the deputies to come get you, but I will if I have to."

A male juror asked where the jurors would be staying, and Green replied that she couldn't tell him. She advised the jury pool that they should make arrangements for someone to pick up their cars if they planned to drive back to the courthouse.

Green's announcement came shortly before noon, after a monotonous morning spent sorting the juries into panels. Potential jurors milled sullenly through the halls of the courthouse, bright pink papers identifying them. Outside, satellite trucks from television media sat idle, their antennas extended, waiting for a photo op. All cameras, recording devices and cell phones were barred from the courthouse.

After the jurors begged Green for more time, she agreed to an extra half hour, directing them all to return by 1:30 p.m. As she recessed for lunch Green added: "You are not to discuss this with anyone except family members. Do not talk to the press. If someone from the media tries to talk to you, get their name and report it to an officer of the court."

Previous Comments

ID

124380

Comment

Like Hickingbottom won't get to them at the hotel.... Seems a bit extreme; but, leave it to Melton to cost the taxpayers more money.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-14T13:11:27-06:00

ID

124381

Comment

Bless them all. I know how hard it is to make child care arrangements, especially if you have no one else to look after them. As much as I would love to serve on a jury, I couldn't have done this one.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-11-14T13:35:17-06:00

ID

124382

Comment

No doubt Lady H. The trouble it is causing is not worth the charges at this time. Glad he is being tried on this; but, it is the Ridgeway and Upper Level incidents that need to be expedited. Plus, any pending Federal charges are more important than this case. Ray, who does it benefit when you sequester a jury in this type case? I'm guessing defense.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-14T13:45:08-06:00

ID

124383

Comment

This is a good idea, and the only way to make sure they don't receive outside influences. All of my cases are done this way. The judge and lawyers will make sure no one is selected who has the hardship of not having anyone to care for their children. Only a moron would allow a juror weighted down by worrying about their children to serve on a jury. Surely, a juror like that would make one or both lawyers pay dearly.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-14T13:45:33-06:00

ID

124384

Comment

I don't know if either side benefits more than the other by this method. I'm scared to not have them sequestered for capital murder cases. Although the judge is making it known she's not open to many/any excuses she will no doubt consider situations where no alternative is available for child care or other emergencies. Sometimes I wonder if it's not a good idea to sequester or control the defendant too. I had a jury hung up for 9 hours going to the second day until suddenly a breakthrough occurred and the defendant was found guilty. Luckily all 12 voted for life instead of death. I'm scared to even say here what happened to unhang the jury except it had something to do with the defendant's conduct.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-14T13:56:16-06:00

ID

124385

Comment

Ray, thanks for your criminal legal analysis. Please pass by as you can throughout the trial and explain what's happening the best you can. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-14T14:15:41-06:00

ID

124386

Comment

Alright. My absence will cost the firms hundreds of thousands but since I love y'all I'll see what I can do.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-14T14:35:11-06:00

ID

124387

Comment

We love you too, Ray. :)

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-11-14T15:17:44-06:00

ID

124388

Comment

This is a good idea, and the only way to make sure they don't receive outside influences.<<<

Author

Queen601

Date

2006-11-14T16:37:36-06:00

ID

124389

Comment

Queen, sequestration creates a climate where the jurors will only hear facts, statements, or comments from the witnesses, lawyers and judge. They won't be able to read the paper or watch television and know what the public or others are saying and expecting from them. It's not a perfect situation but it's better than going home and risking that outside forces such as a husband, wife, or other clost relative or friend would influence a juror's decision.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-14T16:51:17-06:00

ID

124390

Comment

I other words, the goal is to make sure the decision is that of each juror's alone and not that of the public's or someone else's.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-14T17:01:07-06:00

ID

124391

Comment

I understand that Ray. But what is confusing to me is this: What about all the news hype this man has been getting up to this point? Seems like to me to expect these jurors to forget what they've heard thus far just to stop talking with people NOW, seems a little far fetched to me. I don't in any way claim to know anything about the justice system except that I dont particularly think it represents justice. But other than that, I know nothing. So what Im saying is, a Jacksonian who lives in this city and has since Frank has been in office, why wouldn't they already have an opinion about this man's fate? And how can someone, a human, be expected to wipe all of that away just because now you are on the jury and only listen to what is said during the trial. Okay so they can't talk to people, they can't be swayed by the media.... I personally dont think that will have any impact on the jurors who have been following (and most Jacksonians have even if they have not seeked information on Frank) this tragedy called mayoralship since he took office. If I had to serve on this jury I'd be hard to convience not ever having sat in the courtroom. See what I'm saying??? How do you get pass that? Do you just trust that when a potential juror says they have no opinion, that they actually DON"T....C'mon!

Author

Queen601

Date

2006-11-14T17:12:30-06:00