The Cosby jury continues to deliberate (in the criminal case; not to be confused with the 10 civil cases pending against him). At neighborhood coffee this morning, which is where we develop solutions to most of the world’s problems and also come up with brilliant investment strategies and business plans, a former hedge fund manager noted that the opportunity for jurors to make money post-trial could influence their behavior.
Jurors can’t legally be paid prior to delivering a verdict. However, jurors can make money by giving interviews or writing books after a trial (see “CASEY ANTHONY JUROR: Ask Me Anything … For a Price” (TMZ), for example, and Texaco and the $10 Billion Jury, an actually great book written by a juror in what was, at least at the time, the largest verdict in American legal history (the juror was upset at the incompetent reporting by journalists and wrote the book to set the record straight on why the jurors voted as they did; essentially the judge’s instructions and Texaco’s decision not to present an alternative damages theory boxed them in).
If the jury had come back with a verdict after 30 minutes, the Cosby case would have received less total media attention. The jury’s deliberations wouldn’t have been as interesting to the public (if they all agreed immediately, who would care to hear about the discussion?).
Readers: What do you think? Could these folks be taking their sweet time partly because there is some potential for post-case cashflow?
[Morning coffee shop conversation question: Andrea Constand testified that she was so tranquilized that she couldn’t move any of her limbs, but also that she was mentally alert enough to remember what was happening. Why didn’t Cosby’s legal team present expert testimony that there are no drugs whose effects are consistent with this testimony? (except perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curare ?)]
philg:
“Why didn’t Cosby’s legal team present expert testimony that there are no drugs whose effects are consistent with this testimony?”
Having experienced the local legal counsel skills first-hand and forced to go the DIY route, I’d surmise, perhaps, because his lawyer is incompetent ?
@Ivan maybe they thought it would look bad for the jury if they had a doctor or pharmacologist, as a paid expert witness, claim that this victim, drugged and paralyzed by fear, didn’t feel what she felt. (Would they be able to bring her up again to clarify as a rebuttal witness?)
@Mike ALLEGED victim?
What if it turns out that the female jurors voted guilty, while the men voted not guilty. Then there isn’t much of a story, and the evidence and lawyering might not have made much difference.
Roger: That would be a story. See http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/stanford-rape-case-female-dominated-juries-less-likely-to-convict-in-rape-cases-404525.html
and
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/02/16/women_are_more_likely_to_blame_rape_victims_for_their_own_rapes_than_men.html
and
http://www.kkcomcon.com/OJRU/ROJR0107-5.htm (“female jurors are less likely to believe that complainants have the necessary attributes of rape victims.”)