Pellicano Trial: Confusing Jury Deliberations

Posted May 6, 2008 | 01:45 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

The latest update from the Pellicano jury room is that the jury deliberations are proving to be as confusing as the actual case. The jury has come back with at least one question every day since they started deliberating. Some of the questions from the other day seemed to indicate that perhaps the government might be in trouble, but then the questions from yesterday and today, might be interpreted the opposite way. So, based on the jury's questions, it's still risky at this point to predict any type of verdict or whether they'll reach a verdict at all. It does seem that they're confused about the different elements of different counts--which could mean that they're considering those particular charges at this time. Or, they could be considering the various charges out of order. Basically, expert trial watchers as well as some of those involved in the case aren't even close to drawing any conclusions.

Specifically, the jury has asked for some clarification on jury instructions relating to Mark Arneson which touched off an argument between the defense and the prosecution as to how to respond. The jury sent out a note to the judge wondering if they could have additional clarification on what intent is required on charges of honest services wire fraud. After argument, the judge told the jury that they couldn't have any additional clarification. There was also a note on the identity theft charges and whether they each had to affect interstate commerce. The question from the jury was basically "does each alleged act for purposes of RICO have to affect interstate commerce?" The answer from the judge, "with respect to each alleged RICO act charging identify theft, the possession, transfer or use had to affect interstate commerce." There was an additional request this morning as to whether the jury could have an example of a RQH code run and the court said no.

I will post as soon as I know anything more...as in whether the jury might be close to reaching a verdict. STAY TUNED.

Read all the coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom.

 

Comments
17
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

Correction:

I'm sure as he gets older he will see the wisdom in doing so.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 PM on 05/12/2008

Wiretapping is only one part of the equation. Breaking and entering and planting a bug and even a camera is the other part of the equation. Ditto your cars, place of business and your attorney's phone and place of business and anyone else connected to you such as friends and family. That is why Pellicano had his place of business swept often.

I can only hope that Mr. Pellicano will testify against the people that hired him; the Hollywood attorney's and their clients!

I'm sure as he gets older he will see the widom in doing so.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 05/12/2008

Nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Pellicano and the 3 additional defendants will walk our of court free men. Do you honestly believe that Pellicano will testify against his clients........dream on? Truth is not important, this is business. I suggest that you get on with your life and stop hoping to cash in as a victim. It is not going to happen.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 PM on 05/12/2008

It is not "business" it is "crime" and you would know that if you understood what "truth" was which you do not because to you it is "not important." I think the Age of Enlightenment you desire will be good for you... you are right on the cusp of it. You are in the "always darkest" moment right before dawn.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 05/13/2008

In addition, the law is a business, never forget that simple fact.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 05/13/2008

Truth is not important in deciding if a defendant is guilty. The only thing that is important is finding an individual guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It the prosecution cannot meet that hurdle, the defendant is declared not guilty by the jury.

It is not up for the jury to decide the truth, it is up to the jury to decide if a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the facts and ONLY the facts which are presented in the trial.

You may very well think that Pellicano and any or all of the defendants are guilty, I could not possibly comment. That is your prerogative.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 05/13/2008

one viper in the zoo....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 05/08/2008

I would have thought that the jury would have voted for acquittal with little delay, however, apparently some members of the jury must be educated by other members.

The longer deliberations continue the more certain I am that Pellicano et al. will be acquitted.

I am sure that the defendants and the defense attorneys are ecstatic with the extended deliberations. Each day that passes is good news for the defense.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 05/08/2008

i'll bet that Age of truth is that reporter john conolly the one who is writing a book about the PI.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 AM on 05/08/2008

You need to look up two words in the dictionary: "reasonable" and "shill"

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 05/07/2008

AgeOfEnlightenment,

Whose Payroll are you on to write this DRIBBLE?

They are SO obviously going to be convicted of the charges and serve lots of time in jail.

So which one of the defendants are your friends?

Age of Truth

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 05/07/2008

You obviously do not understand the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.

It is laughable to even entertain the belief that the jury will convict.

The defendants will walk out of court as free men and Mr. Pellicano will be enjoying a steak in Beverley Hills, within hours after the jury announces their verdict.

It is called the Constitution of the United States of America and it was written to protect citizens from people such as yourself.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 05/07/2008

Ha! There is so much evidence. Even HE said he acted alone. I believe (and I sat in the courtroom) that there is NO reasonable doubt in those juror's minds that he's guilty.

Wishful thinking though ;)

AOT

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 PM on 05/07/2008

Of course he said that he acted alone in that the others were not aware of how he conducted his business. This is a case about wiretaps, where are the wiretaps? The one CD may or may not have been a wiretap, it was not proven to be a wiretap, it is only assumed to be a wiretap. In addition the FBI admitted that they did not find audio files of wiretaps. There is no evidence linking Mr. Pellicano to actually installing and using wiretaps.

Teleslueth is nothing more than a digital tape recorder interface which is hooked to a computer and a phone line. The same thing, in analog format, has been available for decades from every Radio Shack store in the nation.

The scenario as to how it was done was carefully explained however there is no proof that they did it, ergo, there is reasonable doubt and they will be acquitted.

If you were in the courtroom then you know that I am right. What is your interest in this case, are you an alleged victim and thus interested in the verdict and how it will affect your civil suit?

I hate to burst the bubble, but even the civil suits will fail, even with a lower standard of proof, that being preponderance of evidence. It would be best, just to forget about it and get on with your life.

It would not be wise to count your chickens before they are hatched.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 AM on 05/08/2008

Every tape played on Huffington Post was an illegal wiretap. Didn't matter that they were clients of his. Pellicano never got their consent. It doesn't matter if it was high tech or low tech, if it was telesleuth or a hidden reel-to-reel tape recorder from 1950... if you record a conversation without consent and without a warrant in California it is illegal wiretapping.

Go ask Chris Rock if he gave consent to have Pellicano record him. "Oh, yes, I definitely wanted that private consultation about that woman to be on tape so it could possibly be used against me." Rock didn't know he was getting taped, Courtney Love didn't know she was on tape, they thought they were having a discrete conversation with someone who could help. And whether you are an unethical shill, a deranged low IQer or some truculent mess working loss prevention at the Chuck E Cheese, it would be unreasonable for you to assume that Rock or Love gave consent to tape and it would be unreasonable to assume he had a warrant, so it would not be beyond a reasonable down that he illegally wiretapped them.

You are estranged from the law. Sorry.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 AM on 05/08/2008

Please allow me to enlighten you. This is a federal trial with federal charges in a federal court room.

Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped.

Twelve states currently require that BOTH or ALL parties consent to the recording. These are state laws not federal laws. These states are:

* California
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Illinois
* Maryland
* Massachusetts
* Michigan
* Montana
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* Pennsylvania
* Washington

I am sorry but unfortunately, I am one of those people who is always right.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 05/08/2008

The jury is hopelessly confused with the mishmash of counts. They will acquit on all counts. Count on it.
Nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 05/06/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com