DA Says Robert Blake Jurors Were Stupid

[Kadie]

DA Says Robert Blake Jurors Were Stupid

Thursday, March 24, 2005



(03-24) 07:49 PST Los Angeles (AP) --


District Attorney Steve Cooley says Robert Blake was "guilty as sin" and the jurors who acquitted him of murder were "incredibly stupid."


A jury last week found the former "Baretta" star not guilty in the 2001 slaying of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, who was shot in a car outside a restaurant where the couple had dined.


"Quite frankly, based on my review of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin. He is a miserable human being," Cooley said Wednesday.

snip...
Juror Chuck Safko said: "To hear him say we aren't a smart jury is sour grapes. They didn't have a good case. Their case was built around witnesses who weren't truthful."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/03/24/entertainment/e074920S31.DTL&type=entertainment

[Fluffdaddy]

1. The people have spoken

[saigon68]

27. Typical losing Scum DA

They always BLAME some one else when they CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE.

ITS THE JUDGES FAULT--- THE JURIES FAULT---- THE DEFENSE LAWYER'S FAULT--- THE WITNESSES FAULT---- THE VICTIMS FAULT---IT GOES ON AND ON.

ITS REALLY THEIR FAULT FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB

THIS CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TRIED-- UNTIL THEY COULD PROVE THE CHARGE


They need to "GET A LIFE"

[SemperEadem]

30. Well, then, this verdict goes back to the DA

If there is any charge of stupidity to be laid, it's at the feet of Cooley--he picked the jury. He participated in Voir Dire. At the time he picked them, he was supposed to possess enough smarts and instinct to be able to find 12 people he felt could try the case to its conclusion. I'm sure when voire dire was concluded, he felt he picked 12 intellgent people. Why are they stupid now?

I believe that it says that while he may have thought he put on a brilliant, clear cut case for conviction, the evidence--or lack thereof--spoke to the 12 people he chose differently.

Not to worry, though. When Bakely's family brings the civil suit against Blake--and they will, Cooley can feel vindicated upon the favorable rendering of that verdict.

[whistle]

2. OMG, when will these neo-conservative fascists ever stop....

...when they don't like the verdict, they immediately blame the system and want to discredit and overturn the results.

[xultar]

3. So, you're sure he's a Neo-Con? n/t

[JI7]

6. not sure, but he is the only top Republican official in los angeles

he won mostly because the Democratic opponent was seen as corrupt and ineffective based on OJ Simpson case and a bunch of other things.

but i'm sure this has nothing to do with being a "neocon" but just about being angry at losing the case and taking it out on jury by insulting them.

[CottonBear]

10. Something similar just happened in my city

It was the citizens (and many RW residents of othere counties) who were upset with a murder verdict. The guy was not convicted due to lack of physical evidence and eyewitnesse accounts. (Black defendant. White college student victim.)

The victim's parents and all of the wingnuts immediately blamed the "liberal" jury. They just hate our town because it is a progressive, college town run by Democrats.

[Scairp]

34. Is this the Western Ky. case?

I read about this one, if that is what you are referring to. I understand the guy had an alibi, yet they put him on trial anyway, based on the testimony of an alleged accomplice. The girl was killed in her dorm room, or sorority house room, and then they place was set on fire.

[CottonBear]

47. No. This was in Athens, GA.

A 18 year old, white, male college student (from out of town)was downtown about 3 in the morning. He approached a large crowd of young black men (not college students) who were hanging out in a large group on a sidewalk. The kid asked one of the guys if they had any weed for sale, words were exchanged and the kid was shot.
There was no surveillance video and very little physical evidence. No witnesses fingered the defendant.

There just wasn't enough evidence or testimony to convict him.

I think the kid was very naive. He was from the town where I grew up. He didn't have any clue that one should never approach these groups of people downtown at that hour. Many of them are not even from Athens. Many are thugs and criminals. They are generally up to no good. I avoid downtown at the hour. The college students are home in bed by then and different element is on the streets. No clubs are open so they gather outside on the sidewalks and in parking lots. We now have no cruising laws and video cameras connected to the police stations.

[bobbieinok]

17. and this is unlike the DA and media's reaction to the OJ verdict how?????

[JI7]

4. i understand what the juror is saying

i personally think Blake is guilty and thought they would declare him guilty.

but the juror is right about the witnesses. they weren't very trustworthy and it gives the defense the chance to use that to put enough doubt into jury members to get them to rule not guilty.

[patcox2]

13. Prosecutor can't really choose witnesses, can he?

I mean, you know, these were the people who saw something. It would have been nice if only certified saints happened to see what went on, but thats rarely the case.

Its not really about celebrity; millionaires are rarely convicted of murder; there was a texas case in which a very wealthy man shot a guy with a shotgun at a party at his house, he was aquitted. Or the ex-basketball player here in New Jersey, shot his limo driver with a shotgun. Was having a party, all drunked up with a bunch of friends, got all enraged at the driver, ran and got a shotgun, ran into the room where the driver was, the gun goes off, the driver is dead, for the life of me I cannot understand where was the reasonable doubt there.

[JI7]

15. i think they can decide whether to use them to argue their case

and the fact is that in this case the witnesses were the thuggish type. and this allowed the defense to put enough doubt in the jury to not convict Blake.

[patcox2]

20. If you don't use them, you have no witnesses at all.

Its a matter of money, if you have millions for a defense lawyer, you can do the investigation necessary to dig up the dirt on almost any witness and attack their credibility.

[JI7]

24. then you don't take the case

in Blake's case those people really were unreliable and i'm sure it didn't take much money to find that out.

and if you have no witnesses then you don't take the case.

the issue of money for good defense lawyers is another issue which i agree is a problem when it comes to lower income people and especially when they have to take state appointed lawyers who don't care to do a good job defending their client.

[Tempest]

49. Even the witnesses' family members testified they were liars

And drug addicts.

If I were on the jury, that would weighed heavily on whether I believed the witnesses or not.

[TheWraith]

28. Oh, you mean like the witness

Who claimed that the DA was tunneling into his house? Or who claimed that a hundred other men were tunneling into his house to kill him? That was one of their star witnesses. Even the most marginally competent public defender could have won this case. Saying that having the money for an expensive attorney is equal to a get-out-of-jail-free card just isn't true. Look at Martha Stewart, some of the Wall Street fraudsters, and a dozen other cases. The only definite get-out-of-jail-free card is having political connections that can guarantee you never get charged. Often with celebrity cases, it's actually harder to get an acquittal because there's usually a lot of pressure to convict.

[saigon68]

43. Absolutely TRUE !!!!!

Political connections MAY allow you to skate without being charged

LOOK AT KEN LAY ---PEOPLE

That's CONNECTIONS.

I'd think a reasonably intelligent SPD staff member could have won that case.

If you have fruit LOOPS for witnesses then the outcome sometimes doesn't go the way the DA would wish.

[Tempest]

48. You're wrong

>>I mean, you know, these were the people who saw something.<<

There were no witnesses to the murder.

What the prosecution witnesses claimed is that Blake asked them to kill Blakely for him.

One witness claimed the D.A. was trying to kill him. He also said he saw aliens.

They were both admitted liars and drug addicts. Even their family members testified neither man was trustworthy.

[bloom]

5. He might be right, but it doesn't sound very good to be dissing a jury

He will have future juries - they might not like it.


Actually - I think it might be similar to what we rail about people being sucked into the Schiavo thing, for instance. Maybe the defense lawyers just knew how to manipulate opinion more effectively.

[LibDemAlways]

7. Mr. Blake may well have been

"guilty as sin," but it was up to the DA's office to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." Apparently they didn't.

[Az_lefty]

8. I understand Sadaam wants his trial moved to LA

[cestpaspossible]

9. Steve Cooley publicizes his own failure.

According to Steve Cooley the evidence was there, but he just couldn't convince the jury. It must be terrifying to be exposed as an incompetent attorney in such a high-profile case. Cooley knows he will always be remembered as the failure who was unable to convict Robert Blake. Maybe he and Marcia Clark can team up and co-host a Court TV show: Losing Lawyers.

[WI_DEM]

11. wow for the DA to call a jury "stupid" is pretty stupid

[TahitiNut]

12. I'd say that more than borders on misconduct.

The obligation of a District Attorney is to seek justice - not merely seek a conviction! Such one-sided obsession with convictions has been slapped down more than once. This DA should be impeached for misconduct.

[bemildred]

18. You could even say it was a stupid thing to say ... nt

[Inland]

19. It IS misconduct to insult jurors, the ingrateful pig

I would expect the judge to issue an order chiding him for it right now.

Jurors are serious people giving their time in an important situation. To insult people who just gave up weeks of their lives for justice is bad for the judicial system. He should be ashamed.

[Sandpiper]

26. Maybe he can be Nancy Grace's co-host

Since he obviously considers acquittals to be failures of the system, rather than failure of the Prosecution to meet their burden of proof.

[killbotfactory]

16. I thought lawyers liked stupid juries

Easier to manipulate.

[killbotfactory]

14. Motive doesn't make someone guilty

You have to prove it in court. He should remember that for future reference before he wastes taxpayers money.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

21. Maybe he's right.

Sounds plausible to me.

[0007]

22. Duh? Money can buy a lot of freedom!

[Enraged_Ape]

23. So he got a jury of his peers?

Sounds like the system worked perfectly.

[Sandpiper]

25. Ah, The Hubris of the Defeated

When a DA fails to make their case, it's always the jury's fault.


Just ask them.

[shawn703]

29. Umm, didn't the DA have a say as to who got to serve on the jury?

Who is stupid?

[AlCzervik]

32. They sure do and i blame the DA for this loss

how many times did they talk to Fox "News" and M$NBC regarding his guilt? The DA should have had his office STFU until the trial was over, the jury pool was a bit tainted i'm sure but thats due in part to a lack of self control on the part of the prosecuter. Look for the same result in the Michael Jackson case.

[natrat]

31. welcome to America

land of morons and scheisters,,,and delusional religious freaks

[Sequoia]

33. If they're so stupid it's your fault because you allowed them to be

on the jury.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. DAs believe everyone is guilty of something. Nice way to live, huh.

[Tomee450]

36. I wonder if the jury was comprised of mostly

African Americans. It's usually the black jurors who are called derogatory names when they vote to acquit defendants who are thought to be guilty by the media and most Americans.

[Autobot77]

37. This fucking pisses me off

It's not the jury chose to be there, they were probably sequestered for almost a year away from thier families, work etc. I served on a jury recently, but I was lucky the case only lasted the better part of that day. To insult the jury because they didn't give the verdict you wanted is a slap in the face, plus probably unethical.
Its not the juries fault the DA couldn't build a case against Blake. (I'm not entirely familiar with the case, but it seems to be based on eyewitness testimony, which anyone in law or law enforcement will tell you is completely unreliable)Technically the jury does not have to make a verdict based on the facts of the case. However most people would in a murder trial.
It sounds as if he graduated from the GOP law school where you are guilty until proven innocent or automatically guilty if you are poor and/or a minority. Hell, I probably know more about law then he does and my knowldege has been gleaned off of episodes of CSI.
I hope that piece of shit DA is hauled back in front of a judge and torn a new asshole.

[JI7]

38. UPDATE : Jurors Demand Apology but DA Refuses

<"I'm just disgusted," Blake jury foreman Thomas Nicholson said Thursday. "It appears to me he has no faith in the jury selection. After all, it was his people who helped choose us."

Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson called Cooley's comment a major lapse in judgment — and "much more of an embarrassment for him than the jurors."

"If Mr. Cooley ... thinks there was enough evidence to convict, then he should spend more time doing his job and less time trying to make excuses," said juror Roberto Emerick.

On Thursday night, Cooley stood by his comments.

"There was a failure in this case. It was not my prosecutor. It was not the work of LAPD. It was the jurors didn't quite get it," he said, conceding, however, "I could have phrased it differently."

"But bottom line it was the wrong verdict," he said. "Sometimes jurors should be held accountable for their mistakes.">

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-03-25-blake-jurors_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA

[Renew Deal]

46. "Sometimes jurors should be held accountable for their mistakes."

This country is tuly full of fucking nuts. How exactly does he plan on doing this? Forget the fact that it is intimidation.

[Tempest]

50. What an incredibly stupid thing to say

How many people will refuse to serve on juries if they would be held accountable if the prosecution has a beef with them?

This guy needs to resign.

I hope LA residents put enough pressure on him to force him out of office, with a recall election if necessary.

[oscarmitre]

39. Oh?

On Thursday night, Cooley stood by his comments.

"There was a failure in this case. It was not my prosecutor. It was not the work of LAPD. It was the jurors didn't quite get it," he said, conceding, however, "I could have phrased it differently."

"But bottom line it was the wrong verdict," he said. "Sometimes jurors should be held accountable for their mistakes."

Like the jury in William Penn's case? There's a clue. Perhaps the jury should have been locked up until they complied with the DA's wishes.

[Piperay]

40. Sore loser

he presented a weak case and the fault lies with his office, he should just shut up and take it like a man instead of a crybaby.x(

[Piperay]

41. Cooley will not enforce environmental

regulations and lets polluters get away with violating laws, he is a disgusting peice of shit.

[Heidi]

42. But if the DA's office had successfully proven its case . . .

those very same jurors would be candidates for MENSA, I guess?

[tinonedown]

44. Peterson was busted because his wife was young, pretty and pregnant.

Robert Blake got off because he was a TV star and his 'wife' was old and crazy.
All this other stuff is window dressing. Welcome to American justice.
COLD HARD TRUTH

[Renew Deal]

45. If it was such an easy case...

Why couldn't the DA prove it?