I normally don't post these sorts of stories, but this one just seemed to hit the languish sweet spot
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7237663&page=1
Some excerpts:
Quotejudge called a Brooklyn, N.Y., mother's "vigilante" attempt to deceive a juror from her son's murder trial an invasion of the juror's privacy amounting to "extraordinary misconduct." . . . Doreen Giuliano created a false identity in order to befriend and secretly tape-record Jason Allo, whom she believed should never have been on a jury that convicted her son, John Giuca, of murder. She submitted the tape recordings to the court in the hope that her son might be granted a retrial . . .
She created a false identity, called herself Dee Quinn, changed her appearance and rented an apartment for more than $1,000 a month. The deception was designed to get close to Jason Allo.
"Every time I went to his neighborhood I would have to wear makeup, have my hair done, wear fake eyelashes," she told "Nightline" last month. "So I'm trying to fix myself up for two hours and then get on the bike, or drive there and hope to have an encounter with him."
Giuliano's plan worked, and soon she was "a very nervous actor" with a fake identity and a fake relationship that lasted for months. . .
The motion was denied by New York State Supreme Court Judge Alan Marrus Wednesday. In his ruling he wrote that Giuliano "engaged in a long-term, quasi-romantic relationship with the juror during which she repeatedly manipulated their conversations to get him to speak about this case, and surreptitiously recorded some of their conversations. This court holds that the defendant is entitled to no relief from his judgment of conviction."
Vanity Fair Profile on Mom: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/brooklyn_sting200901
Wow.
:lol: That's incredible.
That is so hot
Awww she really loves her little boy.
Quick, somebody make a Hollywood movie. :lol:
this is like a scenario for a porn movie. maybe she should franchise the idea.
The problem would be one of believability, in that most MILF stars are WAAAAAY hotter than this lady. :(
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 11:45:34 AM
The problem would be one of believability, in that most MILF stars are WAAAAAY hotter than this lady. :(
Yep. She looks okay for a 46-year old in that far-away shot (though she shouldn't be wearing those shorts), but after seeing the pic in the first article-- NO THNX.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2009, 11:45:34 AM
The problem would be one of believability, in that most MILF stars are WAAAAAY hotter than this lady. :(
At least in the picture they showed she was pretty hot. Besides all movies have actors far more attractive than the actual people.
I mean having Josh Lucas play the famously ugly Don Haskins in Glory Road was hilarious.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2009, 11:49:04 AM
At least in the picture they showed she was pretty hot. Besides all movies have actors far more attractive than the actual people.
See spiess's comment. I would agree she has a nice body, especially given her age.
That picture of her with the bike doesn't even look like it's the same person as in the other pics.
lulz. She's an American Gillian Guess, sorta. Dedicated mother. My mom would so not help me like that were I on trial. (she'd be on Montel crying about it though, maybe)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on April 08, 2009, 12:05:22 PMGillian Guess
I never heard of her till you made this post, and then I googled. Wow, what a lunatic. :huh:
I remember that story from the old Languish. Glad it turned out this way. They should have sent the bitch to prison for contempt/disrupting the course of justice, too.
:huh: I think she's a loon, but it's rather touching she did all this for her son.
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 07:28:02 AM
:huh: I think she's a loon, but it's rather touching she did all this for her son.
While I see where you're coming from, this isn't all that different than if she had tried to bribe a juror during the trial. I don't think it's as serious as bribing a juror, but it was still an attempt to subvert the justice system, and I agree with Marty that jail time would be appropriate.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2009, 07:11:07 AM
I remember that story from the old Languish. Glad it turned out this way. They should have sent the bitch to prison for contempt/disrupting the course of justice, too.
Huh? How does this disrupt justice at all?
I don't know what the rules are, and I hope verdicts require more to overturn than showing one juror lied / or was prejudiced. But if she has shown that the jury was prejudiced against her son, then I don't see how it is just to not give her son a new trial. I don't even think she did anything that should be legally wrong, even if she is demented.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 06:17:54 PMWhile I see where you're coming from, this isn't all that different than if she had tried to bribe a juror during the trial. I don't think it's as serious as bribing a juror, but it was still an attempt to subvert the justice system, and I agree with Marty that jail time would be appropriate.
Yes, I agree with all of that as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 06:49:06 PM
Huh? How does this disrupt justice at all?
I don't know what the rules are, and I hope verdicts require more to overturn than showing one juror lied / or was prejudiced. But if she has shown that the jury was prejudiced against her son, then I don't see how it is just to not give her son a new trial. I don't even think she did anything that should be legally wrong, even if she is demented.
The judge just called it a misconduct and refused a retrial on those grounds, but nothing sounds legally wrong... by dint of timing. The ironic thing is if she had done this during the trial, it would have been tampering with a juror and succeeded in setting up for a mistrial.
Actually, trial rules call for a unanimous vote from the jury, or else it's a hung jury and gets sent to retrial. If it can be proven that the juror lied, that could possibly be enough to overturn the jury's unanimous vote and require a retrial, IIRC.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 09:34:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 06:49:06 PM
Huh? How does this disrupt justice at all?
I don't know what the rules are, and I hope verdicts require more to overturn than showing one juror lied / or was prejudiced. But if she has shown that the jury was prejudiced against her son, then I don't see how it is just to not give her son a new trial. I don't even think she did anything that should be legally wrong, even if she is demented.
The judge just called it a misconduct and refused a retrial on those grounds, but nothing sounds legally wrong... by dint of timing. The ironic thing is if she had done this during the trial, it would have been tampering with a juror and succeeded in setting up for a mistrial.
Actually, trial rules call for a unanimous vote from the jury, or else it's a hung jury and gets sent to retrial. If it can be proven that the juror lied, that could possibly be enough to overturn the jury's unanimous vote and require a retrial, IIRC.
I have two points of view on this, which at first glance may seem contradictory (so I'll spell them out separately):
a) I know it takes a unanimous verdict at trial (as it should), but years later I hope the standard isn't that you can show that one of the jurors should have been disqualified to get a retrial. That seems to be opening the door to never ending litigation--I'd like the bar to be higher. I'm comfortable with an 11-0 vote from good jurors and a 1-0 vote from a bad juror, if the bad juror doesn't come to light until after the trial is over.
b) Whatever the standard is to get a retrial, the misconduct of a third party shouldn't matter. Imagine a person murdered to get the information showing that a jury in the trial that sent you away for life was bribed to give a guilty verdict--what would your thoughts be on the judge not considering that bribery because obtaining it involved a crime? Are you okay with spending the rest of your life in jail without ever receiving a fair trial--and the world being aware of that--because the person who showed that you never got a fair trial committed a crime? Doesn't that seem to be punishing you for the actions of someone else?
That is just my point of view on the matter. I don't know what the law says.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 10:02:55 PM
I have two points of view on this, which at first glance may seem contradictory (so I'll spell them out separately):
a) I know it takes a unanimous verdict at trial (as it should), but years later I hope the standard isn't that you can show that one of the jurors should have been disqualified to get a retrial. That seems to be opening the door to never ending litigation--I'd like the bar to be higher. I'm comfortable with an 11-0 vote from good jurors and a 1-0 vote from a bad juror, if the bad juror doesn't come to light until after the trial is over.
b) Whatever the standard is to get a retrial, the misconduct of a third party shouldn't matter. Imagine a person murdered to get the information showing that a jury in the trial that sent you away for life was bribed to give a guilty verdict--what would your thoughts be on the judge not considering that bribery because obtaining it involved a crime? Are you okay with spending the rest of your life in jail without ever receiving a fair trial--and the world being aware of that--because the person who showed that you never got a fair trial committed a crime? Doesn't that seem to be punishing you for the actions of someone else?
That is just my point of view on the matter. I don't know what the law says.
I'm trying to remember the source on this (I was reading up on the penal code for some reason or other, and I believe it was buried in there), but I believe the rationale was that a verdict (including a judgement directed toward a juror!) based on information that was gained inappropriately "can only lead to a slippery slope." Basically, it's to maintain the credibility and authority of a court judgement, to avoid a situation where it could be claimed a prosecution could have manipulated information to obtain its verdict.
If any law-talkers can back me here, I'm definitely out on a limb.