Elkmont, Alabama: In September the trial of a teen accused of killing 5 family members ended in a mistrial when the FBI was finally able to unlock the cellphone of one of the victims. The jurors were dismissed and were promptly interviewed by the media without their names being disclosed. They described the graphic evidence as horrific and difficult to watch, warning the next panel of jurors to be prepared to handle the emotional toll. They had many questions about the evidence and said they would not have found the teen guilty.
So we have extensive coverage in the media of these jurors' personal opinion about the teen's guilt or innocence in a case which will be re-tried. While the court properly dismissed them it raises a question in my mind: should the jurors remain under their oath of confidentiality until the second trial is concluded? This would require a change in most court rules, I believe. In a second trial, can both the teen and the State have a fair trial? It is worth thinking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment