Morons on an Oregon Jury

Filed under:Jerks,Sad,Wacky Oregon — posted by Anwyn on March 20, 2007 @ 9:34 pm

Moron jurors agitate to reopen a case to the point where the DA gives the guilty perp–a father who killed his 33-day-old daughter when he threw her into the air as high as he could and then “threw her down onto the couch with great force,” according to his confession–a new plea-bargain in order to avoid having the case reopened.

[Baby killer] Haley had been charged with felony murder for shaking Gabrielle to death. When he went on trial, [defense attorney] Connall brought in an expert witness who testified that shaken-baby syndrome is old medicine. But before the evidence was all in, Haley decided to plead no contest to second-degree manslaughter and received six years in prison.

When [Judge] Johnson informed the jurors, they objected and said they believed the expert witness had created reasonable doubt. [Moron juror] Hanau contacted Connall, who swiftly went to court to change Haley’s plea. The jurors appealed to District Attorney Michael Schrunk, who reminded them that they had not heard all the evidence. Still, the jurors pursued the case.

Schrunk tried to block the case from being reopened, but he lost in the state Supreme Court. The case was headed for a new trial last fall when Connall appealed to Schrunk to help forge a new plea agreement. After several rounds of talks, he agreed to accept Connall’s proposal, which Haley completed Monday.

He was serving six years, then got a second plea-bargain through the efforts of these moron jurors. The new deal includes four years of prison, three already served, plus probation and a prohibition against caring for children under 18. Oh, and parenting classes. He was high as a kite on weed and had thrown her around much more than once–all according to his confession, which was the return the DA got for this laughably lenient sentence agreement.

Note that the “reasonable doubt” the moron jurors cited was created by an “expert” witness testifying that the shaking need not have caused her death–it’s not reported whether the jurors doubted that she was shaken. You have to be a real moron not to believe that whipping a baby’s unsupported neck around violently will eventually kill her and a real asshole to testify to a “medical” opinion that it won’t.

And the moron jurors were stunned when the confession was read.

[Moron juror] Jean Maynard smiled ruefully. “We don’t think we were stupid jurors.”

Lady, as in everything else connected with this case, you and your fellow morons were dead wrong.


  1. Oh. My. Gosh. Those jurors and the father should all be hung from the nearest tree. Couldn’t just one of the jurors have had enough sense to realize that a high moron killed his child and “12 Angry Men” the rest of them into being reasonable? What imbeciles!

    Comment by Anwyn's sister — March 21, 2007 @ 11:56 am

  2. First, a caveat: I practice law in California, so I’ve no idea what Oregon law says about these issues; on the other hand, I’ve dealt with more than a few juries — and been a juror, too, so, here goes.

    In California, when a defendant enters a guilty plea to a felony, there is an extensive “plea form” to be initialed and signed, covering all sorts of things. The defendant is supposed to go over it with his attorney, and then, after he puts his signature on the last page, the prosecutor takes the plea on the record.

    The defendant exlicitly waives his right to have his innocence or guilt determined by a jury; he acknowledges what the maximum potential sentence and penalties are; and he also states that he’s entering into the agreement freely and voluntarily. At which point, the D.A. says, “You’re charged in Count 1 with violating Penal Code Sec. 187, Murder, in that on this date you did cause the death of your child …”

    The finale is, “To this charge, how do you plead?” The answer — “Guilty,” sends the case to probation for a sentencing memorandum.

    At least a month later, the court imposes sentence on the defendant.

    There are a very limited series of circumstances wherein a defendant can file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea; buyer’s remorse is not an acceptable reason to do so.

    In California, if a defendant came to court and said, “Your Honor, the jurors said I’m innocent, so I want to withdraw my plea,” I think I’m on firm ground when I say the judge would tell him, “Motion denied; you’re remanded for transport to the California Department of Corrections.”

    The appellate courts wouldn’t give him any better results, either.

    The stupidity of the jurors aside, it seems that Oregon law provides something know in legal circles as the Emily Litella clause: “Never mind!”

    Comment by Mike Lief — March 21, 2007 @ 11:12 pm

  3. Mike, thanks for taking the time to address that point. I’m unclear which was the decisive factor putting the case on the verge of being reopened–the jurors’ activities or the “change of plea.” Haley’s actual circumstances–sentenced to six years–do not appear to have changed until this latest plea-bargain went through. The reporter doesn’t seem to know either, or if she did she didn’t make it clear.

    Though I guess it doesn’t matter to your point which one it was, your point being that the case was reopened through–apparently?–something other than a mistrial, and whatever the procedure was is something that California doesn’t have. No comfort to realize that Oregon’s ahead of California in some aspects of the loony progressive race, coming on top of the antiwar scum’s activities in the city here over the weekend.

    Comment by Anwyn — March 21, 2007 @ 11:23 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace