| Subject: Re: To Anonymous Juror.....furthermore..... |
Author:
anonymous juror
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:51:07 05/27/02 Mon
In reply to:
Gina
's message, "To Anonymous Juror.....furthermore....." on 18:43:30 05/27/02 Mon
Please hold your comments of "shame on me". All I gave was my opinion and I will not ashamed of them. Perhaps you misunderstood something.
All I said was that I FEEL the jury did the correct thing and that is convicting a person who we all felt was guilty. It is wrong that a jury or judge would make a decision based on their dislike of an attorney, I'm not sure if that was the case, but it surely could happen. We were watched very closely because of the snafu back in December with the first jury. We really did not speak amongst ourselves during the trial, so I cannot really say what going through others minds. I will say that I felt the trial was very annoying, it was very hard to follow because of all the interruptions. I also feel the prosecutor was allowed to interrupt the trial way too much, and I do honestly feel that the judge clearly showed favoritism toward the prosecutor in allowing him to call all the shots and do and say whatever he wanted.
I will say that after the trial (before I or anyone else heard Fieger's now notorious "alledged" comments) that I heard comments from others annoyed by the prosecutor calling the sidebars, and the other half of the jurors felt it was Fieger's fault that the sidebars needed to be called. I do not agree, I think the prosecutor went too far and the judge let him. I personally like Fieger. I said in my jury questionaire and during questioning with him that I knew who he was, and that I liked his work with the Kevorkian trials. I still got on the jury. Did the trial change my view of Fieger? A little. I was in awe of him and his style and talent with Kevorkian and Jenny Jones, but I was a little unnerved by his style and handling of the Panitz trial. He should have stuck with pinning it on Markus, or Ralf being too drunk to remember what he did that night. But when he started with all the expert witnesses saying that Nancy died of a heart attack and not a beating (of which I saw the horrendous photo of), if he wouldn't have gone that directly during the trial he could have really had some reasonable doubt during this trial. Fieger screwed up this trial (from a defense point of view). That is my opinion. I still think Panitz did it, by himself, in a drunken rage.
I'm pretty sure the judge truly felt Pantiz was guilty without a doubt, and that she gave the sentence she felt was fair. I do also feel the sentence fit the crime. I do not believe that Judge Donnellan was harder on Panitz because of Fieger. However, I do believe that there can be bias, because of Fieger, that can make it hard to get Panitz an appeal. That is NOT fair, you are 100% correct, but I an see that happening.
You said you didn't want comments about after the trial events, so I will refrain from sharing those, but they are not as harsh as you probably are thinking they would be.
I hope I explained myself a little better this time around.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
