Listeners to the Breakfast Buzz have heard morning co-host Kimberly Ray mention mysterious "obligations" she has each day after the show. A little bird that flew over from Entercom says that Kimberly was picked to be on the jury for the Frank Garcia murder trial. (Garcia is the guy charged with killing four people on Valentine's Day.) Apparently Judge Frank Geraci has made it clear to Kimberly that if she talks about the trial on the air, she'll be charged with contempt of court. Once the case is over, expect plenty of interesting stories of what's going on behind the scenes at the trial.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Morning Jock on Jury for Murder Trial
- Thread starter Beaver Bob
- Start date
B
Bob1370
Guest
I'm amazed that someone--either prosecution or defense--didn't use a preemptory challenge to kick her off the jury.
I've no reason to believe she won't do everything humanly possible to do justice (no pun intended) to this trial. But she is human, mistakes can happen, and in a multi-person morning show it might not even be her mistakes. This panel isn't sequestered, so anything even inadvertently said, or alluded to, on the air can pollute the jury's perceptions to tilt things one way or another. Let's do a for-instance...suppose her on-air partner Barry Beck (who is under no restriction from any judge on what he can say) makes an offhand comment to her about the case, or they get into a discussion about a separate case that happened anywhere in the country and made the national news that reminds listeners (including fellow jurors) about Garcia, or about the two killings for which he's already been convicted and is doing life without possibility of parole. Could be a mistrial waiting to happen, just takes one person's unintended slip of the lip.
New York law used to automatically exempt all media from jury duty for precisely that reason, along with public officials, cops and lawyers. They changed it in New York, and got rid of nearly all jury exemptions unrelated to health issues, in the interest of expanding the jury pool. This was one change that will one day bite the judicial system right in the butt when a high profile case blows up because of the exact scenario I just described. Our State Legislature is clearly otherwise occupied right now, but if and when they get all the state's money problems out of the way, they need to address this potential crack in the judicial system.
I've no reason to believe she won't do everything humanly possible to do justice (no pun intended) to this trial. But she is human, mistakes can happen, and in a multi-person morning show it might not even be her mistakes. This panel isn't sequestered, so anything even inadvertently said, or alluded to, on the air can pollute the jury's perceptions to tilt things one way or another. Let's do a for-instance...suppose her on-air partner Barry Beck (who is under no restriction from any judge on what he can say) makes an offhand comment to her about the case, or they get into a discussion about a separate case that happened anywhere in the country and made the national news that reminds listeners (including fellow jurors) about Garcia, or about the two killings for which he's already been convicted and is doing life without possibility of parole. Could be a mistrial waiting to happen, just takes one person's unintended slip of the lip.
New York law used to automatically exempt all media from jury duty for precisely that reason, along with public officials, cops and lawyers. They changed it in New York, and got rid of nearly all jury exemptions unrelated to health issues, in the interest of expanding the jury pool. This was one change that will one day bite the judicial system right in the butt when a high profile case blows up because of the exact scenario I just described. Our State Legislature is clearly otherwise occupied right now, but if and when they get all the state's money problems out of the way, they need to address this potential crack in the judicial system.
In this day and age if you can't get out of jury duty, then you deserve being there. And expecting an air talent to not talk about things that are happening around them is just crazy. If I was her, I wouldn't be talking about the trial, but I might be talking about the judge. Lol Also, I wouldn't really want to tell you how I've gotten out of jury duty before, but I doubt they'll ever pick me again. ;D
T
tnxscoop
Guest
I'm thinking the "little birdie that flew over Entercom" needs to pay closer attention. Kimberly is seated on a jury, NOT the Garcia jury. Are you kidding me? Do you really think they would do that?
Bob1370 said:New York law used to automatically exempt all media from jury duty for precisely that reason, along with public officials, cops and lawyers. They changed it in New York, and got rid of nearly all jury exemptions unrelated to health issues, in the interest of expanding the jury pool. This was one change that will one day bite the judicial system right in the butt when a high profile case blows up because of the exact scenario I just described. Our State Legislature is clearly otherwise occupied right now, but if and when they get all the state's money problems out of the way, they need to address this potential crack in the judicial system.
I am in total agreement that people working in the media (on-air personalities and especially newscasters/reporters) should be exempt from having to serve on jury duty.
Unlike most of the general public, these individuals are more informed of (in this situation) a high profile case since its part of their job to report or discuss criminal cases like the one involving Garcia.
There are retirees who would love to serve on juries, but many times they are not called up. Also if the state's judicial system is so "hard up" for bodies, then why not draw potential jurors from a list of people receiving welfare?
The reality is that most of us have to work for a living while certain individuals get to sit home and have the government take care of them. The least those individuals have the time to serve on a jury.
As for the State Legislature making any changes suggested by Bob1370 pertaining to serving on juries, hell they can't even agree to pass a budget on time.
tnxscoop said:I'm thinking the "little birdie that flew over Entercom" needs to pay closer attention. Kimberly is seated on a jury, NOT the Garcia jury. Are you kidding me? Do you really think they would do that?
I was called up to serve on a jury hearing a murder case when I was employed as a radio news anchor. So yes "they" can really do that.
I have been called several times for jury duty in NYS and Florida. Every time they learned I worked in the media I was out the door.
Color me "astounded." Obviously defense attorney Joe D'Amelio and D-A Mike Green and A-D-A Doug Randall have never worked with people who do radio morning shows.
Talking about a case like this on-air is in an air personality's DNA. Not to mention pressure from management who are perpetually desperate for "elevator talk" controversy (who on this board would be surprised if, "arguendo," management were to say to Kimberly, "hey, go ahead and talk it up. We'll pay your legal bills and keep you out of jail. We've gotta have this.").......hmmmmm??
Or how about a "jeez, I didn't realize that mic was open" "slip-up?" The possibilities are endless.
It's a round of "beat the bomb," a ticking potential mistrial....just waiting to explode.
Talking about a case like this on-air is in an air personality's DNA. Not to mention pressure from management who are perpetually desperate for "elevator talk" controversy (who on this board would be surprised if, "arguendo," management were to say to Kimberly, "hey, go ahead and talk it up. We'll pay your legal bills and keep you out of jail. We've gotta have this.").......hmmmmm??
Or how about a "jeez, I didn't realize that mic was open" "slip-up?" The possibilities are endless.
It's a round of "beat the bomb," a ticking potential mistrial....just waiting to explode.
I have been called several times for jury duty in NYS and Florida. Every time they learned I worked in the media I was out the door.
I've successfully gotten out of jury duty twice in NYS (once each year I've lived here) and twice in Massachusetts (Boston) because I worked for a radio news outlet (WEOS here, WBUR there). Well, I assume that's the reason. I wrote as much on my initial response form and never heard anything back. It would be kinda tough for me to sit on a jury - considering there's only two employees here at the station, and I'm one of them, there's a pretty good chance my job would demand that I report on a trial I might be on the jury for.
Working in "media" alone didn't cut it, though...when I was volunteering at some college radio outlets and working for a commercial webcasting firm, I got called thrice for jury duty...twice I sat until lunch and was then dismissed because all the trials had enough jurors that they didn't need the rest of us. Once I got called and empaneled on a domestic attempted murder case, but was then dismissed by one of the attorneys...never did find out why.
Being a "member of the media" doesn't automatically preclude a person from being considered for or being selected as a juror as I discovered about five years ago when I was selected as a juror in a murder trial in NY State Supreme Court.
During voir dire, I thought because I was "in the media," "knew a few cops," and my son (now a member of the bar) was in law school would be an automatic "see ya." When the judge asked me if I thought I could render an objective decision base the evidence, I answered "yes."
Selected as juror #7.
Serving on a jury is one of the most important act a citizen can perform in order to assure the proper and equal application of the law. It was one of the most educational and enriching experiences of my life. Our jury was comprised of men and women from all facets of life. Some young, some old(er); black and white; blue and white collar. Some with college degrees and even an MBA. Our foreperson worked for the FBI, but not once did she ever mention or use her position during jury deliberation.
The jury was so diverse that at first, I thought it would be difficult to reach a verdict. Instead, I received a first hand education and appreciation of the court system, the law and forensic science. I also learned that the framers of our Constitution were brilliant beyond measure.
Judge Russell P. Buscaglia instructed the jurors as a whole at the end of each session, firmly advising us not to discuss the case with each other or family members. Never once did he say "I don't want to hear this on the radio." His message was clear. Each juror understood his directions. He was a firm but fair jurist.
Very likely, Ms. Kimberly was selected because counsel for the people and the defense, as well as the judge, felt that she was capable of leaving her prejudices and preconceptions at the door when it comes time to render a verdict based on the evidence and the arguments presented.
If Ms. Kimberly felt that she could not render a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt" the attorneys and the judge would have released her. I hope she finds her experience a rewarding act of citizenship.
Our jury, on the second ballot, after nearly six hours of well-reasoned deliberation and consideration of the evidence and the law, voted to convict the defendant on a charge of second degree murder. It was hard work. I'm proud to say on behalf of the jurors, it was a job taken seriously and well-done.
BTW, the verdict stood on appeal, which means the attorneys, judge and jury did their jobs properly.
During voir dire, I thought because I was "in the media," "knew a few cops," and my son (now a member of the bar) was in law school would be an automatic "see ya." When the judge asked me if I thought I could render an objective decision base the evidence, I answered "yes."
Selected as juror #7.
Serving on a jury is one of the most important act a citizen can perform in order to assure the proper and equal application of the law. It was one of the most educational and enriching experiences of my life. Our jury was comprised of men and women from all facets of life. Some young, some old(er); black and white; blue and white collar. Some with college degrees and even an MBA. Our foreperson worked for the FBI, but not once did she ever mention or use her position during jury deliberation.
The jury was so diverse that at first, I thought it would be difficult to reach a verdict. Instead, I received a first hand education and appreciation of the court system, the law and forensic science. I also learned that the framers of our Constitution were brilliant beyond measure.
Judge Russell P. Buscaglia instructed the jurors as a whole at the end of each session, firmly advising us not to discuss the case with each other or family members. Never once did he say "I don't want to hear this on the radio." His message was clear. Each juror understood his directions. He was a firm but fair jurist.
Very likely, Ms. Kimberly was selected because counsel for the people and the defense, as well as the judge, felt that she was capable of leaving her prejudices and preconceptions at the door when it comes time to render a verdict based on the evidence and the arguments presented.
If Ms. Kimberly felt that she could not render a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt" the attorneys and the judge would have released her. I hope she finds her experience a rewarding act of citizenship.
Our jury, on the second ballot, after nearly six hours of well-reasoned deliberation and consideration of the evidence and the law, voted to convict the defendant on a charge of second degree murder. It was hard work. I'm proud to say on behalf of the jurors, it was a job taken seriously and well-done.
BTW, the verdict stood on appeal, which means the attorneys, judge and jury did their jobs properly.
Kudos to Mr. Pastrick for doing his civic duty. It's too bad many citizens view jury duty as the equivalent of being sentenced to weekend work-release litter pickup in median strips - when they haven't done anything wrong to begin with. As Jim noted jury duty is an honor and a necessary function of a fair and impartial court system in a free country. People should fulfill this duty with pride - even if it is inconvenient on a personal level.
I don't think whether or not Miss Kimblerly can be impartial and unprejudiced, is the issue. The fear is that professional pressures might propel her to talk about the trial on the air, however inadvertently. That would produce an immediate motion for a mistrial and potentially scuttle the prosecution's case. I don't believe it's a worthwhile risk given the public and private resources devoted to the trial.
I don't know if it's been settled (on this board) whether Kimberly is actually on the Garcia jury or that of some other trial (if so and I were Joe D'Amelio, I would assign some associate to monitor and print out this thread every day.) But it doesn't matter. Justice must be done in either case, without interference from the radio industry.
I don't think whether or not Miss Kimblerly can be impartial and unprejudiced, is the issue. The fear is that professional pressures might propel her to talk about the trial on the air, however inadvertently. That would produce an immediate motion for a mistrial and potentially scuttle the prosecution's case. I don't believe it's a worthwhile risk given the public and private resources devoted to the trial.
I don't know if it's been settled (on this board) whether Kimberly is actually on the Garcia jury or that of some other trial (if so and I were Joe D'Amelio, I would assign some associate to monitor and print out this thread every day.) But it doesn't matter. Justice must be done in either case, without interference from the radio industry.
B
Bob1370
Guest
The interesting thing about the jury process is, even as things stand now, your chances of actually sitting on a trial jury are fairly low even if you get the call.
I've been called twice in the last 12 years but never tried a case. Each time I sat for a couple hours in the jury room waiting for a call to the voir dire hearing where the lawyers for prosecution and defense question possible jurors for bias (and, although they won't admit it publicly, to get subtle clues to pick as favorable a jury for their respective sides as possible). But I never got there either time...lawyers plea-bargained each of the cases for which I was called, before the jury selection ever started. That's how a large majority of criminal cases are resolved, either with a plea-bargain early on in the case or a last-minute deal struck just before jury selection starts.
I might have made a lousy juror from a prosecutor's point of view, especially in a non-violent drug case (which I heard later was the charge in each of the cases where I might have served). Defense lawyers may also have wanted me gone. I've done several programs calling into question the harshness of the law as it pertains to nonviolent offenders in general, and nonviolent lower level drug sellers in particular. By the same token, I know the chief prosecutors in our area well and have had a cordial working relationship with them over the years, which might make a defense attorney think twice before wanting me judging his client.
But they'd have had to find that out in the course of questioning me if I'd ever gotten to the voir dire stage. That should never be left to chance...it should be the law that people who cover and work with participants in the criminal justice system should NOT be on a trial jury. We're human beings. Even if we bend over backwards to be impartial and analytical ini our jury work, any of us who've reported on cases and issues and formed opinions about the law, and are acquained with people in the system, can't help but be subtly affected in our judgments and perceptions by things we've seen, and people we know and respect.
I've been called twice in the last 12 years but never tried a case. Each time I sat for a couple hours in the jury room waiting for a call to the voir dire hearing where the lawyers for prosecution and defense question possible jurors for bias (and, although they won't admit it publicly, to get subtle clues to pick as favorable a jury for their respective sides as possible). But I never got there either time...lawyers plea-bargained each of the cases for which I was called, before the jury selection ever started. That's how a large majority of criminal cases are resolved, either with a plea-bargain early on in the case or a last-minute deal struck just before jury selection starts.
I might have made a lousy juror from a prosecutor's point of view, especially in a non-violent drug case (which I heard later was the charge in each of the cases where I might have served). Defense lawyers may also have wanted me gone. I've done several programs calling into question the harshness of the law as it pertains to nonviolent offenders in general, and nonviolent lower level drug sellers in particular. By the same token, I know the chief prosecutors in our area well and have had a cordial working relationship with them over the years, which might make a defense attorney think twice before wanting me judging his client.
But they'd have had to find that out in the course of questioning me if I'd ever gotten to the voir dire stage. That should never be left to chance...it should be the law that people who cover and work with participants in the criminal justice system should NOT be on a trial jury. We're human beings. Even if we bend over backwards to be impartial and analytical ini our jury work, any of us who've reported on cases and issues and formed opinions about the law, and are acquained with people in the system, can't help but be subtly affected in our judgments and perceptions by things we've seen, and people we know and respect.
I've never gotten farther than the voir dire questioning... I had happened to just thwart an attempted break-in in my own house a couple of days before my jury duty, so the defense attorney didn't think I would be his optimal choice.
Other times, both here and in NJ, never even got that far.
I would be very surprised if any "public figure" would be selected for a high profile case.
Other times, both here and in NJ, never even got that far.
I would be very surprised if any "public figure" would be selected for a high profile case.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.