This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/arts/television/cosby-trial-jurors-names-judge-hearing.html
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Cosby Jury Named as Report Says It Favored Conviction | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| The judge who presided over Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial ordered on Wednesday that the jurors’ names be released to the news media, but he sharply limited what jurors are allowed to discuss about the protracted deliberations that ended on Saturday in a hung jury and a mistrial. | The judge who presided over Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial ordered on Wednesday that the jurors’ names be released to the news media, but he sharply limited what jurors are allowed to discuss about the protracted deliberations that ended on Saturday in a hung jury and a mistrial. |
| Judge Steven T. O’Neill ruled that he had little choice, under a 2007 State Supreme Court ruling, but to make the jurors’ names public, yet his reluctance was evident throughout his written order. He released the names after each juror had been contacted and given instructions on what not to say. | Judge Steven T. O’Neill ruled that he had little choice, under a 2007 State Supreme Court ruling, but to make the jurors’ names public, yet his reluctance was evident throughout his written order. He released the names after each juror had been contacted and given instructions on what not to say. |
| Judge O’Neill cited the intense, widespread attention the case had drawn, and wrote that if jurors had been identified during the trial, reporters would have contacted their families, adding to the pressure that the jury felt. “Withholding the names of the jurors in this case until the declaration of mistrial was necessary to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the jurors with the ends of ensuring a fair and impartial trial,” he wrote. | Judge O’Neill cited the intense, widespread attention the case had drawn, and wrote that if jurors had been identified during the trial, reporters would have contacted their families, adding to the pressure that the jury felt. “Withholding the names of the jurors in this case until the declaration of mistrial was necessary to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the jurors with the ends of ensuring a fair and impartial trial,” he wrote. |
| Looking ahead, he noted that prosecutors have vowed to retry Mr. Cosby on charges he sexually assaulted Andrea Constand, a former Temple University staff member. | Looking ahead, he noted that prosecutors have vowed to retry Mr. Cosby on charges he sexually assaulted Andrea Constand, a former Temple University staff member. |
| “Any disclosure of what was said and done during deliberations in this case would have a chilling effect upon the future jurors in this case and their ability to deliberate freely and to feel secure in the protection of their privacy during their sworn jury service,” the judge wrote. “Further, future jurors will be reluctant to speak up to say what they think when deliberating if they fear that what they say during deliberations will not be kept secret.” | “Any disclosure of what was said and done during deliberations in this case would have a chilling effect upon the future jurors in this case and their ability to deliberate freely and to feel secure in the protection of their privacy during their sworn jury service,” the judge wrote. “Further, future jurors will be reluctant to speak up to say what they think when deliberating if they fear that what they say during deliberations will not be kept secret.” |
| He ordered that jurors not disclose publicly any “arguments or comments made, or votes cast,” or, indeed, “anything said or done in the jury room” by their fellow jurors. But that wording appears to leave the jurors free to reveal their own views and actions. | He ordered that jurors not disclose publicly any “arguments or comments made, or votes cast,” or, indeed, “anything said or done in the jury room” by their fellow jurors. But that wording appears to leave the jurors free to reveal their own views and actions. |
| Jurors contacted by the New York Times were unwilling to speak about their deliberations. But ABC News reported that it had spoken to one juror, who it said had asked for anonymity, and that the juror said the panel was leaning toward convicting Mr. Cosby on two of the three counts, but two jurors refused to go along with that verdict. | Jurors contacted by the New York Times were unwilling to speak about their deliberations. But ABC News reported that it had spoken to one juror, who it said had asked for anonymity, and that the juror said the panel was leaning toward convicting Mr. Cosby on two of the three counts, but two jurors refused to go along with that verdict. |
| On a third count, which charged Mr. Cosby with assaulting Ms. Constand while she was unconscious, the jury was leaning heavily toward acquittal, ABC News said. | On a third count, which charged Mr. Cosby with assaulting Ms. Constand while she was unconscious, the jury was leaning heavily toward acquittal, ABC News said. |
| After 52 hours of deliberation spread over six days, the jury had been unable to reach a consensus on any of the three counts of aggravated indecent assault that Mr. Cosby faced. | After 52 hours of deliberation spread over six days, the jury had been unable to reach a consensus on any of the three counts of aggravated indecent assault that Mr. Cosby faced. |
| Legal experts said it was rare for a judge to put conditions on what jurors can say after a trial has concluded. Lynne M. Abraham, a former judge, said that it makes sense to ask the jurors to respect the privacy of the jury room but that it’s not clear they can be ordered to keep quiet. | Legal experts said it was rare for a judge to put conditions on what jurors can say after a trial has concluded. Lynne M. Abraham, a former judge, said that it makes sense to ask the jurors to respect the privacy of the jury room but that it’s not clear they can be ordered to keep quiet. |
| “The judge can’t prevent them,” she said, “but they will probably want to do the right thing,” | “The judge can’t prevent them,” she said, “but they will probably want to do the right thing,” |
| When the judge did not make the names of the jurors public at the end of the trial, several news organizations, including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Associated Press, The Washington Post and The New York Times, filed a motion requesting access to the names, citing their First Amendment right. | When the judge did not make the names of the jurors public at the end of the trial, several news organizations, including The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Associated Press, The Washington Post and The New York Times, filed a motion requesting access to the names, citing their First Amendment right. |
| Both the prosecution and the defense requested that the judge deny the motion, saying that the release of names could affect a second trial. | Both the prosecution and the defense requested that the judge deny the motion, saying that the release of names could affect a second trial. |
| “Although jurors may choose to come forward to the media of their own volition, that should be their choice,” Kevin R. Steele, the district attorney for Montgomery County in Pennsylvania, wrote in response to the media motion. “In this case,” he added, “there is a substantial probability that the rights of the parties to a fair trial will be prejudiced by the release of the names of the jurors from the recent mistrial.” | “Although jurors may choose to come forward to the media of their own volition, that should be their choice,” Kevin R. Steele, the district attorney for Montgomery County in Pennsylvania, wrote in response to the media motion. “In this case,” he added, “there is a substantial probability that the rights of the parties to a fair trial will be prejudiced by the release of the names of the jurors from the recent mistrial.” |
| During a hearing on the matter on Tuesday, the judge said he needed to balance the media’s First Amendment rights with the possibility that disclosing the names could chill the selection of a second jury. He also cited the media’s treatment of the jurors during the trial, saying journalists had tried to photograph and speak to the jurors despite his order prohibiting anyone from contacting them. | During a hearing on the matter on Tuesday, the judge said he needed to balance the media’s First Amendment rights with the possibility that disclosing the names could chill the selection of a second jury. He also cited the media’s treatment of the jurors during the trial, saying journalists had tried to photograph and speak to the jurors despite his order prohibiting anyone from contacting them. |
| Typically, judges might withhold names of jurors to protect their privacy during the trial but would release them when a trial concludes, if not earlier. Juries have been most often kept anonymous in situations where judges are worried about their safety, such as in cases involving defendants associated with gangs or organized crime. | Typically, judges might withhold names of jurors to protect their privacy during the trial but would release them when a trial concludes, if not earlier. Juries have been most often kept anonymous in situations where judges are worried about their safety, such as in cases involving defendants associated with gangs or organized crime. |
| Throughout the trial, Judge O’Neill had been mindful of the jurors, who were chosen from Allegheny County, some 300 miles away, to avoid the influence of pretrial publicity. The jurors were sequestered for the duration of the trial in a hotel near the Montgomery County Courthouse. As the trial stretched on, the judge appeared sympathetic and attentive to the needs of the jurors, referring often to how hard they were working and, later, how worn out they must be. | Throughout the trial, Judge O’Neill had been mindful of the jurors, who were chosen from Allegheny County, some 300 miles away, to avoid the influence of pretrial publicity. The jurors were sequestered for the duration of the trial in a hotel near the Montgomery County Courthouse. As the trial stretched on, the judge appeared sympathetic and attentive to the needs of the jurors, referring often to how hard they were working and, later, how worn out they must be. |
| “For today, you must be very tired,” he said at the end of their fourth day of deliberations, adding, “You are exhausted and deliberation should be with a fresh and well-rested mind and body.” | “For today, you must be very tired,” he said at the end of their fourth day of deliberations, adding, “You are exhausted and deliberation should be with a fresh and well-rested mind and body.” |
| At the beginning of the trial, Judge O’Neill had said the jurors should remain anonymous so the news media could not identify and pursue them. But he seemed to suggest that he would release the jurors’ names as soon as they reached a verdict. | At the beginning of the trial, Judge O’Neill had said the jurors should remain anonymous so the news media could not identify and pursue them. But he seemed to suggest that he would release the jurors’ names as soon as they reached a verdict. |
| After he declared a mistrial, however, he did not make the jurors’ names public and instead cautioned the jury not to disclose their deliberations in detail because doing so could affect future deliberations. | After he declared a mistrial, however, he did not make the jurors’ names public and instead cautioned the jury not to disclose their deliberations in detail because doing so could affect future deliberations. |