Politics Jurors Profiting from Trials

Jamison

Cadet
Jax jurors bank on flip-flop
BY MICHELLE CARUSO
DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, August 4th, 2005

LOS ANGELES - Two jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson of child molestation charges now say they think the pop star was guilty - and they are penning tell-all books about the jury's deliberations, the Daily News has learned.
"Guilty As Sin, Free as a Bird" is the title of 79-year-old Eleanor Cook's tome, according to Larry Garrison, president of Silver Creek Entertainment.

He will co-write the book with Cook's granddaughter.

And Ray Hultman, 62, will pen "The Deliberator" along with former Jackson family friend and author Stacy Brown. He co-wrote the successful "The Man Behind The Mask" with Jackson's former publicist Bob Jones.

"These books are going to rock the nation," said Garrison, a film and TV producer.

"Elly and Ray are two of the three jurors who [initially] voted for 'guilty'" Garrison said, referring to the early balloting in the jury's deliberation process.

Garrison declined to identify the third juror he said initially voted to convict the pop star.

On June 13, after 32 hours of deliberation over seven days, 12 jurors voted unanimously to acquit Jackson of charges he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor after plying the boy with alcohol.

Ironically, in interviews immediately after the verdict, Cook fervently supported the verdicts, and she openly mocked the accuser's wacky mother, whose trial testimony was punctuated with annoying finger snaps.

"Don't snap your fingers at me, lady!" Cook said at post-verdict press conference where jurors explained why they acquitted Jackson.

Most said they felt the family had credibility problems and the evidence was weak.

Garrison declined to reveal what went on in the jury room or why Hultman, Cook and the third juror changed their votes from guilty to not guilty.

"The jurors had made a pact to stick together" and not talk about what went on in the jury room, Garrison said.

But after several jurors appeared on CNN's "Larry King Live," Hultman and Cook felt "that was it" and decided to reveal the inside scoop, Garrison said.

A film about the Jackson jurors' experiences is also in the works, Garrison said.

Google this and you can find a lot more articles on it...this was just the first one I grabbed.

So the basic jist of the story is that these two jurors were adament that Michael Jackson was not guilty and voted so during the trial. Now they've gotten book deals and have publically come out and said that they feel that he's guilty.

Eleanor Cook was actually in contact with Jackson's mother all throughout the trial and would wink at her during testimony and wore the same colors as the family to show solidarity with them. She was very vocal in thinking that he was innocent not only in the jury room but in all the post trial interviews that she did...now she's singing another tune.

The point is, should jurors be allowed to profit from the trials they sit on? If these two jurors hadn't known that they could get killer book deals to sell their story, then would that have changed the outcome of the trial?

It just seems to me, that you shouldn't be able to profit from something like jury duty. I realize to many people it's a bother and takes a lot of time and money away from their lives, but allowing them to profit from it opens up cases exactly like this.
 
This is getting ridiculous.

Jacko juror likened his accuser's mother to a waitress:- New York | August 17, 2005 3:00:18 PM IST


The 79-year-old juror in Michael Jackson's case, Ellie Cook, rejected testimony of the accuser's mother because the mom reminded her of a snippy Denny's restaurant waitress who once failed to give her a "senior discount".

According to New York Daily News, Cook said the restaurant incident "played a minor role" in causing her to disbelieve the mom, and her son's stories about Jackson.

This has been revealed in Cook's upcoming book. "It was that little chick [the accuser's mom] that blew it for the boy," she was quoted as saying.

She had venom for the mom of Jackson's 15-year-old accuser, who stared and snapped her fingers at jurors to get her points across.

"I listened to the testimony ... all the signs were there, and I believed them. But you don't sit near me, with your son's posterior in my legal purview, and give me a fresh look - because I'll make those tiny glutes famous, sunshine," says Cook in her proposal, addressing the mom directly.

So something that factored into her decision was the fact that the accusers mom remindede her of a waitress at Denny's who didn't give her a senior discount.

And now a third juror has come out and said publically that she too, believes that Michael Jackson is guilty.
 
I'm all for jurors profiting from trails. People want to know what happen in the court rooms when cameras were not allowed...so i say hey if ya want to make a buck off a major trials go for it...because after their 15min of fame is up... Life will go back to normal
 
This is exactly why jurors should not be allowed to discuss or to profit from trials. It is not right to cast aspersions on a man found innocent, especially when you were one of the jurors that found that way. It makes a mockery of the jury system and allows outside influence to play a part in what should be a highly important decision.

I think its disgraceful.
 
noggi16 said:
This is exactly why jurors should not be allowed to discuss or to profit from trials. It is not right to cast aspersions on a man found innocent, especially when you were one of the jurors that found that way. It makes a mockery of the jury system and allows outside influence to play a part in what should be a highly important decision.

I think its disgraceful.
[post="1460432"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I completely agree. It's disgusting.
 
noggi16 said:
which is exactly why jury deliberations should remain secret.
[post="1462106"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


While I understand your point, I don't think we have to go that far to stop this from happening. I think jurors can be allowed their 15 minutes in their post trial interviews and what not. But the harm comes when these jurors make money off of the cases they sat on. They shouldn't be allowed to sign a multi million dollar book deal about the case. It's inappropriate, and you get sleazy people like those jurors from the Michael Jackson trial.
 
Back
Top