Jurors say Stevens hurt his case by testifying
Published Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON -- To hear jurors tell it, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was his own worst witness during his corruption trial.
Two jurors - one of whom posted a Web log of her jury duty experience - say Stevens undermined his own defense by verbally jousting with Justice Department prosecutors and denying that just because he was given something didn't make it a gift.
"It was kind of weird," said Colleen Walsh, one of the jurors who found Stevens guilty on seven felony counts. "Throughout the case, he was kinda quiet and you know, kinda grandfatherly, but when he was up on stage, he was like a lion, and he was kind of demeaning to the lawyer, so it didn't help his case that much," she told the Associated Press in an interview.
Walsh, 32, and Brian Kirst, 25, an alternate who sat through the trial but did not join the deliberations, said Stevens' combative performance hurt him with the jury.
Kirst described the Justice Department's evidence as "hard-core," difficult to refute. Stevens' stories "just didn't add up," Kirst told the AP.
"The whole thing was just a mess. It was like, 'You're not helping, so why are you up here?'" Kirst said. "It was kinda interesting to see him shoot himself in the foot."
The jury convicted Stevens, the Senate's longest serving Republican, on seven felony counts of lying on Senate financial documents to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts and home renovations from millionaire businessman Bill Allen. Stevens, who won't be sentenced until early 2009, has said he will appeal.
The jury deliberations were filled with controversy from the start. Jurors complained of stress and violent outbursts from one of their members during deliberations. They asked for her to be replaced, but the judge refused.
Walsh joined the deliberations after a juror claimed her father had died, left for the West Coast and did not return phone calls from the judge. Walsh said the tension was obvious.
One of the jurors asked everyone "to keep their voices down, let everyone else have their say and no swearing and stuff like that," she said. "Basically, act like adults. I was like, 'What the heck happened last week?'"
The judge later discovered that the juror who disappeared, Marian Hinnant, 52, flew to California for the Breeders' Cup, not to her father's funeral.
Kirst and Walsh said most of the jurors decided not to talk to the media about their time in the courthouse. Walsh, however has started a blog about the trial, http://juror11.blogspot.com because of all the questions she was getting from her family and friends about the case.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
That overbearing, arrogant, authoritarian-daddy crap works on Alaskans. It doesn't work on anyone anywhere else.
He never should have testified.
Well, he is right. Just because some one gives you something doesn't mean it's a gift. How'd you like to come home and find your home furnished with someone else's furniture and all of your heirlooms missing? I wouldn't!
The biggest mistake the Stevens' made was not immediately calling the police. No real 'friend' would swipe your stuff and totally refurnish your home without your approval. (now where on earth would one fence such items as a sealskin sofa, diamond willow tables, and other priceless Alaskan artifacts?) Keep a lookout Fairbanks....Uncle Ted was ripped off! Allen is no friend, let me tell ya.
I do believe Ted Stevens is innocent, and if the appeal doesn't go through, there's no such thing as justice in the USA. Ted was FRAMED. et tu' Brute? Bill Allen is a creep.
Jurors from D.C.. The same D.C population that voted 97% democratic. Sure was a jury of peers.
I love the 'jury of his peers' argument.
I love the 'let's condemn the entire legal system because my politician didn't win' argument.
/A dangerous game, that...
So you're saying that peers = the same political affiliation?
Yup, yup... Allen stole from Stevens for years, and Steven's biggest mistake was not immediately calling the police the first time...
Or calling the police the second time...
or the third time...
ad naseum... (*cough cough*) Seeing a trend here?
Or perhaps Stevens could have just told Allen (who was trying to bribe Stevens to vote his way) to knock it off?
Please folks... Think. You have it right, if you'd only think it through. "...no "real" friend would swipe your stuff and totally refurnish your home without your approval", ESPECIALLY a "friend" who wanted your vote and did it many, many times if the stories could be believed. The jury agreed with that too. No one would - and so they convicted Stevens.
alaskansheilah, If there were items that were in my home that I did not want there, they would be gone. End of story. Keep with the charade all you want, but here we have an actual juror from the trial saying that Stevens wasn't believable in his explanations.
trip,
The juror could have been a Democrat, therefore anything she said was clearly biased and she was only out to get Stevens. Everything she said is invalid and to be disregarded.
Now if she was a Republican on the other hand...
I constantly tell kids they must be accountable. Don't make excuses, own up to things, take responsibility.... having to make excuses for the "honorable" ted stevens is sickening! He got a brand new 45,000 dollar land rover for the price of a corolla (like 20,000) and that wasn't even allowed into evidence. BTW Jury of your peers doesn't mean like-minded or like-opinionated folks, it means adult US citizens. As a matter of fact if potential jurors are too PRO or too ANTI the venue can be changed. I truly believe that ANY Jury in ANY state would have convicted him on the EVIDENCE (which there are rules for) AND we are about to see a Jury of Alaskans vote him out of office. This is a group of voters who has not voted for a Democratic senator in over 35 years and who went for McCain 60/38.
He has been in the hip pocket of the oil companies for his whole career. My Guess is he has taken FAR MORE than what came out in this trial--I wouldn't be shocked if he has accepted straight up cash homey.
The trial continuing condemned the jury system. In any other case it would have been a mistrial as soon as the judge found out that the prosecution did not hand over all the documents to the defense. A jury member leaving to go to a horse race. Is that person in contempt of court or in jail somewhere? Stevens wasn't believable in his trial? The jury wasn't believeable. Ted being quilty or not, the entire trial was a fiasco.
CPW
"Web log"? Who the hell says that anymore?
CPW, that's not true at all. Check the Randy Weaver trial. Check the Geronimo Pratt trial. In those (federal) cases and hundreds (if not thousands) of others, the feds have played games with both the evidence quality and with discovery; it's how they do business.
What the feds did was to NOT treat Ted like an oligarch or quasi-royalty..... except for when they called him on the telephone and announced that they were going to enter his home for a search without using his (offered) key.
The rest of us would've simply experienced our doors being kicked in, with no advance warning via a telephone call.. and, under the USA PA that Ted supported, perhaps not even being allowed to see the afadavit that resulted in the warrant to begin with.
So you see, Ted -still- got treated better than most; at least in one small way. They just weren't willing to forgive his acts of criminality during his stint of public service simply because Ted and his supporters happen to believe that his scat doesn't stink.
It sounds to me like they convicted him because they didn't LIKE him. That's NOT the way our justice system is supposed to work!
Haha, I didn't notice that... Not I can't *not* notice it!!
Years of power had the effect of making him too arrogant. He forgot or put aside what he once knew as a prosecutor.
I am saying that by the odds and by recent displays of party polarization both local and nationally, that the odds of Stevens having a jury of his peers were very much against him. And this would be fugitive from your thought processes ,how?
Grrr... Why did a US Senator have to tried in the capital, in a federal court, for 'federal offenses'!?!?!? My whole scheme of wanting him tried in Alaska or Texas, or some other republican stronghold.....down the drain! Stupid judicial system!
If only jurors were selected by party affiliation, we wouldn't have this problem! Or better yet since obviously Stevens didn't get a jury by his peers.... you know, since all of the jury was composed of illegal immigrants, apparently. We should make it so in order for a juror to be considered a 'peer' of the defendant they must first be screened to make sure they are of the same political party! That'll fix this problem!!!!!111
"And this would be fugitive from your thought processes ,how?"
Pssshh, my thought process doesn't have seven felony convictions... They only fugitive around here is Stevens!
I wonder who he voted for on the fourth?? O wait, he couldn't vote!!111
Valkyrie - Do you seriously believe that by having a 97% chance of a complete democratic jury Steven was served by a jury of his peers? How about this, having the jury picked randomly from all over or from a place that has a somewhat balanced amount of both parties. By the way, do you know the difference between legal and actual guilt and why this is significant? Would I be correct to assume you are a Democrat?
I don't know why you're arguing with me about it. I completley agree with you! If only the judicial system was different!
It's completley wrong that a US Senator should be charged for federal offenses in the US capitol.
People just don't understand.
"Steven was served by a jury of his peers?"
That's what I'm saying! Those weren't US citizens on the jury. They weren't his peers. They were illegal immigrants. Probably from one of those countries 'down south'.
You know plainview, Palin had it right when she said that certain parts of the country are more 'American' than others. I think you and I are both proud to live in one of the most 'American' parts of the country. We agree that it's safe to say that Washington D.C. is cleary one of the most un-American places in the US. I mean look at how they vote!
Those Confederates had it right when they had their capitol in Virginia!
*sigh* If only Stevens had his trial in a real 'American' location like here or Texas I bet he woulda been aquitted and he wouldn't be in this mess.
You and I plainview, we see things how they really are. We're a dying breed, I fear.
"...that has a somewhat balanced amount of both parties..."
This is so true. We should only let people on juries from 'battleground states'! Those are always really close in how they vote. Better yet, every juror should have to disclose how they vote in order to be selected! And you and I both agree if you voted for Bill Clinton, you definitley shouldn't be allowed on!! Make sure you check counties though because a lot real Americans live in rural areas! So, really I think we should just have an equal amount from the cities and from the countries.
Yup, a jury of his peers! Get some of the old cranky white guys in there, and make sure they is senile, dangdabit! Dadburn coloreds ain't the right ones!
My point? Get over it! He's the (male) laughing stock of AK.
didn't both the prosecution and defense teams agree on all of the jurors beforehand?
Valkyrie - My apologies if I misunderstood you. I didn't hear anything about illegal aliens. I assumed you were being sarcastic with all this.
Nice username, by the way.
Quick - someone tell me where it says that one is entitled to have their case heard by a jury of one's peers. And what does that really mean? Political affiliation, race, religion, gender, socio-economic status? I'll answer for you..... NO WHERE! Jury of one's peers is a notion that has evolved in our legal system and in fact, has no basis in the Constitution.
Looks like the AI candidate and his backers cut their nose off to spite their faces! Always, be careful what you for for; because, your wish may be granted.
This should give the Democrats 60 Votes and full control of the Senate!
From the division of elections 4:18 pm 11/18/2008
Begich, Mark DEM..150728..47.76%
Bird, Bob AI.............13113...4.16%
Stevens, Ted REP...147004..46.58%
Ref
-http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm
This is what happens to people that think they control people. Your time is next for people that do selfish things on our shifts.
trippwire - would you settle for the terms " impartial jury, fairly selected"?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.