Indicted -- Guilty

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by AndreaAbbott, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Blather from the Consumerist: Court Says Berating TSA Officers During A Pat-Down Is Disorderly Conduct, Not Free Speech

    Using your words to fight is one thing, but you can’t just yell whatever you want in whoever’s face you want to yell it in, especially if that person is working in an official capacity.

    Not true, in particular the Supreme Court has rules that giving a cop the middle finger is protected speech, so there is plenty of room here for protest.

    It also doesn't matter much what a misdemeanor trial court in Nashville says. Their decisions have absolutely zero value as precedent.

    The problem in Andrea's case is that that something wasn't well-conveyed to the jury -- either the lawyer's presentation or the judge's instructions, or perhaps the jury simply ignored it.

    Justice cost Phil Mocek $30K. Just don't fly -- it's a more cost-effective protest.
    KrazyKat likes this.
  2. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    I managed to find *ONE* newz site with a couple of pro-TSA comments. Lisa Simeone was there first with a rebuttal; my comments seem to be pending review. :D
  3. AndreaAbbott

    AndreaAbbott Original Member

    1. Deliberations started about 11:00ish. So 4 hrs. They did take a couple of breaks.

    2. Yes, extra pigs/smurfs showed up.

    3. Every juror had flown at sometime in there lifetime.

    4. No far. Set up?? Hook line and sinker. lol
  4. AndreaAbbott

    AndreaAbbott Original Member

    No worries.

  5. I am now a jury avoider because I am the only person who can take care of my young children, but I've always wanted to be on one. I went through jury selection once for a murder trial back when I was a grad student. The defendant was a young, likable-looking black man, and you could see his well-dressed extended family seated behind him. The questions asked in jury selection made it clear that the evidence was largely circumstantial, the sole witness saw the murder from a distance through a dirty windshield, and the guy's girlfriend might have some unsavory things to say about him. When the defense attorney questioned me, he overplayed his hand -- he asked if I would acquit if the evidence did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I said of course I wouldn't convict unless the case was proven. You could see that the defense liked me. And immediately, the prosecution (district attorney) cut me -- grad student, requires solid evidence, no way. The defense attorney and the defendant looked crestfallen.

    The prosecution did, however, keep a guy on the jury who said, very dramatically, that if he could meet anyone from history, it would be Jesus Christ. They also kept another woman who said something similar.

    I never did find out what happened in that trial. Hopefully it worked out for the best, whatever the best was. But I don't think smart, ethical people not offering themselves for jury duty is the whole problem. I don't think we're particularly wanted as jurors in many cases.
  6. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Speaking as the son of a lawyer, you are absolutely correct.
  7. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    So...exactly how much (expletive deleted) would one be in if they were to (mis)represent themselves as a freedum-luvin' Amurrkin with a hankerin' for some old-fashioned law & order during voir dire, and then turn around and refuse to convict in an obviously-reaching case like Phoebepontiac's? I mean...have cases ever been won or lost based on "But your honor! Juror #5 said they'd convict even with shaky evidence and now they're the 'not-guilty' holdout!"?
  8. RB

    RB Founding Member

    They have to prove you misrepresented yourself for starters. And who is to tell you what you believe based on presented evidence? I would say if there is even the slightest doubt the person walks.
  9. AndreaAbbott

    AndreaAbbott Original Member

    Clarification for some: I do live in Texas, that info has been published thanks to the press. I have unsupervised probation most likely for a year, this is being looked into to make sure that this is the minimum.
  10. ETA: replying to CelticWhisper

    Well, from my limited experience there, you could be vague and a little shy with your answers. They weren't probing in depth, and it really seemed like more of a game between the defense and prosecution than a search for good information from the jury pool. And really, saying something like you'd like to meet Jesus Christ doesn't necessarily mean you're some kind of redneck black-fearing Christian. Who wouldn't want to meet Christ, if they had a chance? It would be totally interesting. In fact, IIRC, had they asked me the famous person question, I was ready to answer George Bush, because he was newly elected, and whatever. It was earlier than I was used to getting up and I was tired, and drawing a blank.

    I think the difficult part would be gauging the wind, figuring out what kind of answers would be non-controversial enough, and yet believable given how you present yourself. But I probably didn't have a chance to begin with, based on my profession stated in the paperwork. I was a grad student in creative writing -- way too much of a wild card.
  11. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Actually, that was attempted in the one case I know of in recent history where they tried to put a juror in jail for voting not guilty.

    I believe that was in Colorado about ten years ago.
  12. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    So if she had stripped down and then criticized them while naked would that have been okay?

    Methinks both TSA and our Judiciary need to go.
  13. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    I was also selected for a jury duty for a murder trial about 10 years ago (not 1st degree, which might involve the death penalty). They did not ask any prospective juror direct questions, but posed questions to the panel as a whole. They allowed the prospective jurors to ask questions, and I think some of the questions that the panelist asked were designed to purposly get them disqualified by either the defense of the prosecution.

    As with your case, the defendant in my case was a clean-cut and very innocent looking young black male. I remember thinking to myself that there was no way that this unassuming gentleman could possibly have committed murder, but I also thought in the back of my mind that I have been fooled many times by outward appearances.

    To make a long story boring, I was chosen as one of the jurors and sat through 1 week of trial testimony. When we reconvened the following Monday, the deliberation lasted only about 1 hour, and even though the evidence was ALL circumstantial, it was clear that this guy did the deed. Circumstantial evidence can be, in some cases, more damning than eye-witness testimony.
    phoebepontiac likes this.
  14. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I forgot about that guy -- he also prevailed, as did Phil Mocek.
  15. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Where thugs rule, we're supposed to put up with anything, or get punished. You are a patriot and a hero, Andrea.
    barbell likes this.
  16. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Andrea, I think I forgot to thank you for answering my questions so - Thank You!
  17. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Reason: Mom Convicted After Dressing-Down TSA Agents Groping Her Daughter (Oct 30 2012)

    A woman was found guilty Tuesday of disorderly conduct for berating security officers trying to pat down her teenage daughter and then refusing to submit to the procedure herself at a Tennessee airport.

    Jurors deliberated four hours before convicting Andrea Abbott. She had faced up to 30 days in jail and a $50 fine for her conduct in the July 2011 confrontation at Nashville International Airport, but the judge placed her on probation for a year because she has no criminal record.

    Judge Joe P. Binkley Jr., warned the 42-year-old "to be certain you don't get into any further problems with the law."

    With this kind of slap on the wrist, something tells me the judge understands what's up.
  18. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I don't see a year of probation being a slap on the wrist. The judge could have given a month or less if he wanted to send a message.
    worldwide likes this.
  19. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Is it supervised probation?
  20. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Not 100% sure but I think I read unsupervised.

Share This Page