The jury has been deliberating for four hours already, indicating that
this is not the clear open and shut some thought for one side, and
some thought for the other. Here is a newspaper reporter's account of
at least part of the key jury instruction on the entrapment defense:

"Chief U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade gave the jury special
directions on how to decide whether Stabler entrapped Sherzer.

'A person is entrapped when law enforcement officers induce or
persuade that person to commit a crime that the person had no previous
intent to commit,' she said, reading from the 16-page jury charge.

'However, there is no entrapment where a defendant is ready and
willing to break the law and the government merely provides what
appears to be a favorable opportunity for the defendant to commit the
crime.'"

"After Granade's instructions, jurors broke for lunch, returning to
begin deliberations around 1 p.m. A little more than three hours
later, they sent a note to the judge asking whether investigators may
induce someone to commit a crime if no crime has been committed prior
to the government's involvement. Granade told them to look again at
copies of the instructions she'd read earlier."

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...8157393420.xml

This sounds like either a confused jury or a confused newspaper
reporter, because the question shows no understanding of the
instruction whatsoever.

Assuming that the government has the burden of overcoming the
entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt given that this is a
criminal case (I'm not sure this is a correct assumption in AL), the
real question here appears to be:

Has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex Sherzer
had a previous intent to commit a crime and that he was ready and
willing to break the law before the government got involved?

Based upon the limited information reported, a hung jury still appears
to be a real possibility.

KidDon

(KidDon) writes:
Assuming that the government has the burden of overcoming the
entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt given that this is a
criminal case (I'm not sure this is a correct assumption in AL), the
real question here appears to be:

It's a federal case, AL law doesn't apply.

Has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex Sherzer
had a previous intent to commit a crime and that he was ready and
willing to break the law before the government got involved?

The jury instruction

However, there is no entrapment where a defendant is ready and
willing to break the law and the government merely provides what
appears to be a favorable opportunity for the defendant to commit the
crime.

doesn't require the defendant to have an intent to commit a crime
before the FBI got involved. It only required him to be ready and
willing. From what I've seen, the FBI agent spent a long time slowly
seducing Sherzer. If he thought Sherzer was ready and willing, he
would have sent "hey, let's meet and have sex" as his very first
message once he took over the girl's persona.

So it looks obvious to me that the agent didn't think Sherzer was
ready and willing. I also think Sherzer would have declined such an
invitation, if it weren't for the agent's slow buildup.

So, based on the jury instruction and what I've heard about the
emails, it's now my belief that entrapment definitely took place and
Sherzer should be acquitted.

A little more than three hours
later, they sent a note to the judge asking whether investigators may
induce someone to commit a crime if no crime has been committed prior
to the government's involvement. Granade told them to look again at
copies of the instructions she'd read earlier.

Yeah, I went through that little dance alos. One of the juries I was on asked
for a clarification of "premeditation"; Judge said re-read the instructions.
We all looked at one another, the foreman pointedly turned the judges
instructions upside down and said "Common sense?" We all all agreed and never
looked at the judges instructions again.

On 25 Sep 2003 05:42:16 -0700, (KidDon) wrote:

The jury has been deliberating for four hours already, indicating that
this is not the clear open and shut some thought for one side, and
some thought for the other. Here is a newspaper reporter's account of
at least part of the key jury instruction on the entrapment defense:

"Chief U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade gave the jury special
directions on how to decide whether Stabler entrapped Sherzer.

'A person is entrapped when law enforcement officers induce or
persuade that person to commit a crime that the person had no previous
intent to commit,' she said, reading from the 16-page jury charge.

'However, there is no entrapment where a defendant is ready and
willing to break the law and the government merely provides what
appears to be a favorable opportunity for the defendant to commit the
crime.'"

"After Granade's instructions, jurors broke for lunch, returning to
begin deliberations around 1 p.m. A little more than three hours
later, they sent a note to the judge asking whether investigators may
induce someone to commit a crime if no crime has been committed prior
to the government's involvement. Granade told them to look again at
copies of the instructions she'd read earlier."

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...8157393420.xml

This sounds like either a confused jury or a confused newspaper
reporter, because the question shows no understanding of the
instruction whatsoever.

Assuming that the government has the burden of overcoming the
entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt given that this is a
criminal case (I'm not sure this is a correct assumption in AL), the
real question here appears to be:

Has the government proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex Sherzer
had a previous intent to commit a crime and that he was ready and
willing to break the law before the government got involved?

Based upon the limited information reported, a hung jury still appears
to be a real possibility.

KidDon

So, let us say that I am sitting in a hotel room. A naked girl knocks
on my door. I let her in. She then lies down on my bed. I then do what
normal men normally do with a naked girl in their bed.

She turns out to be an FBI Agent and I am arrested.

Do I have an entrapment defense?

Sam Sloan

This sounds like either a confused jury or a confused newspaper
reporter, because the question shows no understanding of the
instruction whatsoever.

Sorry Don, but the instructions I've seen using read like the confused
nonesense in speech from Shakespear (Merchant of Venice) to "Neither a borrower
or a lender be..." The juries I've been on usually set the instructions aside
as priestly gobbblygook not applicable to the real world.

Interesting question from the jury; Not the open and shut jury back in 15 mins
with "Let's hang the guy" that was expected.

Fifiela wrote:

This sounds like either a confused jury or a confused newspaper
reporter, because the question shows no understanding of the
instruction whatsoever.

Sorry Don, but the instructions I've seen using read like the confused
nonesense in speech from Shakespear (Merchant of Venice) to "Neither a borrower
or a lender be..." The juries I've been on usually set the instructions aside
as priestly gobbblygook not applicable to the real world.

Interesting question from the jury; Not the open and shut jury back in 15 mins
with "Let's hang the guy" that was expected.

Does anyone know how many jurors there are?

My general feeling is that most of what jurors know about serving on
juries comes from watching "The Practice", "Ali McBeal" or the old
"Perry Mason" reruns.

Despite living in the same place for many years, I've never been called
for jury duty. I always thought it would be an interesting experience,
but in today's world it costs a lot of money. My gut feeling is that
most high paid professionals attempt to weasel out of serving, leaving
custodians, street vendors and clerks with 8th grade educations to fill
the slots.

After seeing the OJ trial, I have this image in my mind of jurors
having about a 3rd grade average mental level, and envision judges and
lawyers needing to address them as if they were reading The Cat in the
Hat, for fear of otherwise confusing them about what to do.

"He is not guilty, for that act, unless they've proven it as fact. He
can't have done it in his car, he can't have done it the bar. If he did
it with a gun, find him guilty, have some fun."

Best Regards,

Bruce

My gut feeling is that
most high paid professionals attempt to weasel out of serving, leaving
custodians, street vendors and clerks with 8th grade educations to fill
the slots.

Last jury I was on (murder) had two sweet little old ladies who sat through the
entire trial and understood not a word of it. Just the basic facts: Who shot
who? Who was the wfie? Who was the girlfriend? Who as the best buddy? After
4 days on trial, NO idea of the basic facts.

After an hour of trying to bring them up to speed on the case, they said "Well,
it's real confusing to both of us so why don't you all talk about it and decide
and we'll go along with your decision." The doddering two spent the rest of
the time in the corner visiting about grandchildren and dead husbands. The
rest of us (who were split whether murder 1 or manslaughter) went along with it
because we figured that any other jury in Tulare county would probably include
one or two or maybe three clueless sweet lttle ole ladies.

The jury deicded on murder 2 (I was the last holdout for murder 1) and the two
old ladies went along with the verdict. The rest of us in the jury just about
fainted with the prosecuiton asked to poll the jury but Gabby and Abby clearly
said "Yes" when asked if the verdict was their considered judgement. I guess
that they were being truthful; It a was as considered a judgment as Gabby and
Abby were capable of.

Mike Murray wrote:

On 25 Sep 2003 10:42:09 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

My general feeling is that most of what jurors know about serving on
juries comes from watching "The Practice", "Ali McBeal" or the old
"Perry Mason" reruns.

Despite living in the same place for many years, I've never been called
for jury duty. I always thought it would be an interesting experience,
but in today's world it costs a lot of money. My gut feeling is that
most high paid professionals attempt to weasel out of serving, leaving
custodians, street vendors and clerks with 8th grade educations to fill
the slots.

After seeing the OJ trial, I have this image in my mind of jurors
having about a 3rd grade average mental level, and envision judges and
lawyers needing to address them as if they were reading The Cat in the
Hat, for fear of otherwise confusing them about what to do.

I've done two stints of jury duty, and was impressed with how
seriously most of the jurors approached their responsibility, and with
the intelligence of most of them in the jury-room discussions. In one
case, however, one juror pretty clearly, IMO, exercised nullification
and we ended up with a hung jury in what seemed to the rest of us like
an open and shut case. There seemed to be an over-representation of
retired people, but it otherwise seemed a pretty typical cross-section
of the community.

And your impressions from actually having been there are probably a lot
more typical at least for the locale in which you live. I suppose that
juries are as diverse a group intellectually as the neighborhoods or
areas from which they come. Juries drawn for very low SES areas, might
tend to reflect the educational and employment level of that community.

As I said, my remarks were directed at my impressions of the high
profile OJ case than anything else.

Best Regards,

Bruce

a hung jury still appears
to be a real possibility.

KidDon

Please, let's not use this expression in this context. Regards, al

On 25 Sep 2003 10:42:09 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

My general feeling is that most of what jurors know about serving on
juries comes from watching "The Practice", "Ali McBeal" or the old
"Perry Mason" reruns.

Despite living in the same place for many years, I've never been called
for jury duty. I always thought it would be an interesting experience,
but in today's world it costs a lot of money. My gut feeling is that
most high paid professionals attempt to weasel out of serving, leaving
custodians, street vendors and clerks with 8th grade educations to fill
the slots.

After seeing the OJ trial, I have this image in my mind of jurors
having about a 3rd grade average mental level, and envision judges and
lawyers needing to address them as if they were reading The Cat in the
Hat, for fear of otherwise confusing them about what to do.

I've done two stints of jury duty, and was impressed with how
seriously most of the jurors approached their responsibility, and with
the intelligence of most of them in the jury-room discussions. In one
case, however, one juror pretty clearly, IMO, exercised nullification
and we ended up with a hung jury in what seemed to the rest of us like
an open and shut case. There seemed to be an over-representation of
retired people, but it otherwise seemed a pretty typical cross-section
of the community.