From the Chicago Trib :
But the 67-year-old grandmother said she also knew that as a juror in Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial, she had a responsibility to follow her conscience and the law. She said she did not believe he or his brother committed a crime with their actions to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat, so she would not find them guilty despite what other jurors, prosecutors and, perhaps, the general public wanted.
If it was going to be 11-1, so be it.
That’s what JoAnn Chiakulas had to say about it.
“I thought he was narcissistic,” she said. “I thought he was all over the place. I thought he was just rambling.”
It also concerned Chiakulas that some key witnesses who testified against Blagojevich had cut deals with prosecutors before testifying, she said.
“Some people in (the jury room) only saw black and white,” Chiakulas said. “I think I saw, in the transcripts and in the testimony, shades of gray. To me, that means reasonable doubt.”
No highly sophisticated ambivalence based upon mixed messages from the Supreme Court. Just plain, old vanilla reasonable doubt. And it’s not easy to hold a contrary position from the majority.
But standing her ground in the jury room was not easy. Other jurors have acknowledged pressuring Chiakulas to change her vote on the Senate seat, with one man going so far as to switch chairs so he could “look her in the eyes” during deliberations. She was yelled at and told she wasn’t being logical, jurors said.
One person asked the judge for a copy of the juror’s oath, implying that Chiakulas wasn’t fulfilling her obligation. Chiakulas and at least two other female jurors said they felt belittled and questioned whether their gender had something to do with their treatment.
Some of the other jurors were not pleased with her, suggesting that she was not deliberating in good faith because she didn’t bend to the will of the majority. And still she held firm. But it wasn’t because of Blago.
While Chiakulas shunned the media spotlight in the days after the verdict, the loquacious Blagojevich appeared on national television to thank her for her resolve and proclaim that she has reaffirmed his faith in God.
When asked about his comments, Chiakulas frowned and slightly shook her head.
“I didn’t do it for him,” she said.
In my post on the hung jury/ mistrial, I suggested that the holdout might try to create a rationale that justified her decision in light of post hoc criticism and analysis. It doesn’t appear to have happened, as JoAnn Chiakulas offers neither apology nor excuse for her decision. That’s just what she believed. Amen.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think she should be Time’s “Person of the Year”. Maybe that sort of principled act would help sell some pieces of that rag.
This raises a question. How many people have been convicted because a lone juror gave in to harassment and pressure from other jurors?
Great to hear feedback from the other jurors also; they are clearly principled and respectful people who did some very hard work and respected JoAnn in spite of her disagreeing with them (a challenge for us all). These are the jurors I would want should anyone I know ever be accused of a crime.
Regardless of whether you agree with her, JoAnn’s thought out application of the hard to understand rules gives hope that the system can and does protect the accused … no matter what stupidity they engage in on Celebrity Apprentice.
Rereading the comments to flesh out potential voir dire questions: “if Mr. S sits down across the table from you so he can look you in the eye and pressure you to change your vote and everyone else in the room is against you, will you give in even if you have a doubt, still see a shade of gray no matter how dark?”
This reminds me of Rockwell’s painting that hangs in my office. I think it is called The Holdout. 11 men hover over and berate the lone woman in a jury room. I also remember my first ever 11-1 hanger. The holdout (I assume) came out of the jury room her face covered in tears and bolted the courtroom as soon as they were discharged. The other jurors stuck around to talk because they couldn’t wait to express their fury with her (the case had child sex implications, though none actually charged, so emotions ran high).
I also agree that asking jurors if they heard about this and what they think about it and whether they feel they could do the same could be a great voir dire tactic.