Only a week ago, I posted of the ill-conceived request by defense counsel to poll the jury following a verdict of acquittal. That didn’t work out very well. Now the flip-side of the equation surfaces, in a case involving one of the most ridiculous instances of alleged judicial impropriety raised in quite some time, the case of Herman Thomas, the spanking judge.
The first charges against Thomas surfaced in 2001 when an inmate claimed that Thomas offered to help with the case in return for sex. Those charges were dismissed. But that wasn’t nearly the end of it.
Inmates then began claiming that Thomas forced them to strip down to their underwear and then spanked them. Others claimed he forced them to perform sex acts.
Creepy? Bizarre? Sick? All of the above? Absolutely, assuming he’s guilty of the allegations against him. So the former Alabama circuit court judge was prosecuted, as he should be, tried, as he should be, and acquitted. There they were, the members of the jury, sitting in the box, the entire courtroom on edge in silence as the verdict was read. The defendant, the spanking judge, was . . . Not Guilty.
But that was then, this is now. Via WKRG.com, three of the Thomas jurors have come forward to say that this wasn’t their verdict.
But that was then, this is now. Via WKRG.com, three of the Thomas jurors have come forward to say that this wasn’t their verdict.
Three jurors in the sex abuse trial involving a former circuit court judge are disputing the verdict. The jurors say the vote was not unanimous.
One juror, who insists he voted guilty on all but two charges, says he was “shocked” when the verdict was read aloud. “We were railroaded,” said the juror, who declined to comment any further until after he meets with the district attorney this afternoon.
Never before has a juror claimed to have been railroaded, as far as I’m aware, but this raises a couple of questions. Given that the verdict was an acquittal, why didn’t the prosecution request that the jury be polled? In last weeks case, it was noted that the request to poll can become too routine, to the obvious detriment of the erstwhile acquitted defendant. Was the prosecution so shocked by having lost a trial that they went into brain lock and forgot?
And then, there’s the curiosity of why the three jurors now coming forward to complain that they were “railroaded” sat silently when the verdict of not guilty was announced. Not a whimper, an “ahem”. Nothing. If the jurors had voted for guilty, did this not strike them as a very good time to alert someone to a possible problem?
Let’s speculate, just for fun, that given the outburst of joy and relief following the announcement of the acquittal, the three jurors who claim to have voted for guilty didn’t feel that there was an opening for them to stand up publicly, express their shock and outrage and tell the world that the fix was in. Maybe they just didn’t want to be party-poopers (since everybody hates a party-pooper). Was there an alternative?
As much as the defendant is all hugs and kisses after an acquittal, and perhaps in some instances a quick spank on the backside, the prosecution tends to be a little down in the dumps. They collect their things, give the defense lawyer a nod, and shuffle out of the courtroom with their heads down. This would be a pretty good moment for a juror to go “psst” to the prosecutor, followed by “hey, buddy; that wasn’t the verdict.” I suspect that this would have interested the prosecutor at that particular moment. I suspect someone would have perked up.
Of course, this didn’t happen. The verdict was announced. Nothing to the contrary was said. No polling of the jury was sought. Time to start the party.
WKRG.com updated its report last night:
And then, there’s the curiosity of why the three jurors now coming forward to complain that they were “railroaded” sat silently when the verdict of not guilty was announced. Not a whimper, an “ahem”. Nothing. If the jurors had voted for guilty, did this not strike them as a very good time to alert someone to a possible problem?
Let’s speculate, just for fun, that given the outburst of joy and relief following the announcement of the acquittal, the three jurors who claim to have voted for guilty didn’t feel that there was an opening for them to stand up publicly, express their shock and outrage and tell the world that the fix was in. Maybe they just didn’t want to be party-poopers (since everybody hates a party-pooper). Was there an alternative?
As much as the defendant is all hugs and kisses after an acquittal, and perhaps in some instances a quick spank on the backside, the prosecution tends to be a little down in the dumps. They collect their things, give the defense lawyer a nod, and shuffle out of the courtroom with their heads down. This would be a pretty good moment for a juror to go “psst” to the prosecutor, followed by “hey, buddy; that wasn’t the verdict.” I suspect that this would have interested the prosecutor at that particular moment. I suspect someone would have perked up.
Of course, this didn’t happen. The verdict was announced. Nothing to the contrary was said. No polling of the jury was sought. Time to start the party.
WKRG.com updated its report last night:
MOBILE, Alabama – 6:15 p.m.
District Attorney John Tyson, Jr. says he plans to file motions in the case, as early as tomorrow morning.
Unfortunately for DA Tyson, ineffective assistant of counsel is not available to the prosecution to get another bite. As for a collateral attack on the verdict, it should be dead in the water, just as it is when the defense tries to challenge impropriety in the jury room, not to mention that darned double jeopardy thing. It looks like a few of the defendants before Thomas weren’t the only ones in Alabama to get spanked.
Update: DA John Tyson changed his mind, after his three complaining jurors collapsed, and will not try to attack the verdict.
On Thursday, Tyson declined to elaborate on his discussions with the jurors. But he indicated one juror had trouble remembering the specifics of his vote. One woman declined to sign an affidavit, and refused any further involvement. One man also declined to sign an affidavit, not wanting to be the only person, Tyson said.
Asked whether he felt confident that the jurors’ seven not-guilty votes were unanimous, Tyson said: “I cannot prove otherwise.”
And why would that be?
And having muddled up the acquittal with the taint of a faulty verdict that will follow Herman Thomas forever, the case now dies with a whimper. Because the DA “just didn’t.”
He said any jurors who disagreed with the verdicts should have spoken up during court.
“This case is over,” he said.
Prosecutors did not poll the jury, confirming the verdict with each juror, at the end of the trial. “We just didn’t,” Tyson said.
And having muddled up the acquittal with the taint of a faulty verdict that will follow Herman Thomas forever, the case now dies with a whimper. Because the DA “just didn’t.”
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.