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….”
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…