Fascinating “Daily Beast” Article: Views Of Two Jurors, Post Three Convictions Verdict…

Do read the entire Daily Beast piece — in which two jurors not previously quoted by the media — offer lots of juicy details.

In my professional opinion, none of them will help Mr. Shkreli win a new trial. But some of them mean his sentence… may well be enhanced.

To my eye, this is the most interesting part:

“…My main concern was that when we voted on Count Five — and the related Count Seven — we weren’t really voting on the charges but on one juror’s interpretation of what the language of a clause in a single sentence meant,” says Juror A.

“One little sentence in Element Two of Count Five in the judge’s instruction booklet said Shkreli was guilty if his actions ‘was for the purpose of financial loss or property loss.’ The holdout juror interpreted that to mean we had to prove that Shkreli’s motive was to cause ‘harm’ to other people. That juror changed the language from ‘loss’ to ‘harm’ and ‘hurt’ and then it was repeated around the room. But that’s not how it reads. It says ‘financial loss or property loss.’”

Jurors A and B say the holdout juror could not see beyond that sentence.

“That juror insisted that meant that the prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shkreli meant to cause ‘hurt’ or ‘harm’ to the people he was swindling,” says Juror A. “Many of us disagreed and thought that he only had to cause financial loss or property loss….”

In the end, the jury compromised: they let one juror have his way on 5 and 7, to get the other convictions. That is fairly common — and plainly permitted by applicable law.

Come January 16, 2018, the able Judge Matsumoto has the discretion under the guidelines, to “add back” for the one juror’s bullying. And I think she will. And just for the record, judges don’t give instructions allowing jury nullification, because that is… NOT allowed.

Onward, and namaste…


8 thoughts on “Fascinating “Daily Beast” Article: Views Of Two Jurors, Post Three Convictions Verdict…

    • condor says:

      No clue. But they are human too. And they may have felt that they had him convicted 12-0, on three counts — so that was “enough”.

      And it will be, now that Judge Matsumoto has completely lost her patience for his criminal nonsense.

      Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      I think what this tells us is that inside the courtroom, a seasoned judge (and former prosecutor) saw the evidence come in.

      And she well knows all eight counts may inform her sentence length (5 of them as acquitted but “relevant” conduct; three of them as solid convictions)…

      The jury’s view here is useful in explaining why the overwhelming evidence… wasn’t enough, on some counts.

      I suppose the AUSAs could argue at sentencing (based on these jurors’ press interviews), that the one hold out achieved a nullification on counts 5 and 7.

      But make no mistake — Judge Matsumoto intends to send a message now, come January 2018. That’s my take.


      Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        I am reaching here — but the jury is just supposed to follow the law.

        These two jurors are suggesting that the one holdout “changed” the law as written in the Judge’s instructions on Counts Five and Seven.

        That holdout convinced the other 11 that “loss” meant harm or injury.

        But that was not what the instructions said — which is why these two now dissenting jurors (from the partial acquittals) wrote “WTF?!” next to that part of their booklets, on Count Five, which were returned to the court, post the verdict being read/conviction.

        So… “nullification” is when the jury ignores the instructions of the judge. And it is impermissible, as a general rule.

        But I do not expect the AUSAs to bring it up — because it complicates an already clear path to a very long sentence for Mr. Shkreli — with an upside of only a slightly longer sentence.

        They will let it ride, with Judge Matsumoto, and trust her street smarts — I predict.

        Namaste, man!

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        In a best case scenario, yes. But why bother? Justice was served. Nice and… cold, it turns out.

        Mr. Brafman may argue this is general evidence of juror misconduct (even though it cuts AGAINST his client’s innocence), and seek a new trial.

        But he will lose.

        And now the New York Daily News has sourced its prior (anonymous, but different) jurors reacting to the Daily Beast, as follows:

        Several jurors even reportedly wrote “WTF?” on jury instruction language next to one of the disputed counts resulting in acquittal.

        But another juror told the Daily News Monday that there was a lot of debate over whether Shkrekli purposely meant for investors to lose money or property.

        “There were 12 of us in the room. Twelve debated on that issue for quite some time,” the juror said, later saying “I didn’t feel I was bullied.”

        At the end of the day, the verdict reflected the consensus of everyone in the room, the juror said….


        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.