Judging Freedom - Parkland Shooting Jury Room Trouble

Episode Date: October 14, 2022

'A crime may have been committed in jury room': Nikolas Cruz prosecutors says juror was THREATENED https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti... #parklandshooting #SchoolshootingSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, October 14th, 2022. It's about 1.35 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States Yesterday the verdict came down in the Nicholas Cruz penalty phase case

Nicholas Cruz is the now 24-year-old, at the time he was 20 Who slaughtered 21 people at the Marjory Stoneham Dunham High School in Florida A horrific, horrific event. This is the case in which there was one police officer there, and he was fired for not going in and trying to stop Cruz. Cruz eventually left the building and went to a Hardee's or a McDonald's to have lunch, and that's where he was arrested. He pleaded guilty. There was no plea agreement. Normally, when you're charged with mass murder and the government wants to execute you and you plead guilty, in return, the government agrees not to seek the death penalty. There was no agreement

here. So he pleaded guilty. And then there's the penalty phase. As you may know, in America, thanks to about a 10-year-old Supreme Court opinion, only juries can impose the death penalty. So even where there is no trial on the merits on whether or not he committed this crime or is guilty of first-degree murder, because he pleaded guilty, there's a jury trial just on the penalty phase. So the evidence in the jury trial is of aggravating factors, the horrible things he did and his attitude about it, and the mitigating factors, his own messed up upbringing and undiagnosed and untreated psychosis and other mental problems. And then the jury weighs the aggravating and the mitigating factors. And then it decides if there should be the death penalty. Now, there were 17 people whose

murders qualified for the death penalty. So the jury had to vote 17 times. And all 17 times, they voted 11 to 1 in favor of the death penalty. Well, because under Florida law, it has to be unanimous. The default from the death penalty is life in prison without parole. So when the judge sentences him, she really has no discretion whatsoever. She can say things on the record to soothe the anxiety of the survivors of these murdered children. She can say things on the record to soothe the anxiety of the survivors of these murdered children. She can say things on the record to send a message to society, particularly thinking about other potential mass murderers out there. But she can't change the penalty. If the penalty had been death penalty, The judge can undo that and

sentence him to life in prison but where the the jury fails to agree on the death penalty unanimously and automatically under Florida law defaults to life in prison without probation without parole the jury the judge cannot change that. So this monster, whether you think he's crazy or not, and there's enough evidence in the case to go either way. There's evidence in there to conclude that he was rational and knew exactly what he was doing. There's evidence there to conclude that he was suffering from such a mental disease that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did. One juror believed the latter,

and that juror stuck to that position. So because it was 11 to 1 in favor of the death penalty, it automatically defaults to life in prison without parole. Now this morning comes a letter from one of the jurors. We don't know if it was this one who voted against the death penalty, but one of the jurors said, I was threatened in the jury room. Well, I don't want to gainsay that, but I've heard that a lot in my career. Sometimes these jury negotiations are very dramatic. I mean, if it's a serious, specific threat, if you vote this way, I'll kill you. Well, that's a crime. Then a crime was committed in the jury room. If it's a, if you vote this way, society will never forgive you. That's not a crime. That's a means used to persuade someone's

mind. What will the judge do? The judge will find out who this juror is and ask if it affected the juror's vote. If, for example, the juror who voted against the death penalty was threatened into doing that, which almost seems inconceivable since everybody in the courtroom was in favor of the death penalty, if the ultimate outcome changed because of the threat, then the judge must get involved. But if the ultimate outcome changed because of the threat, then the judge must get involved. But if the ultimate outcome did not change because of the threat, if the juror who was threatened voted the way that juror was going to vote anyway, whether it was for the death penalty or not, then it's basically no harm, no foul. Just like with elections, we are entitled to fair juries, but not perfect ones. We're entitled to fair election outcomes, but not perfect ones.

If the shenanigans in the election change the outcome, the courts have to do something about it. If it just changed the numbers slightly, they're probably not going to do anything about it. Same thing with a jury. If whatever happened in that jury room changed the ultimate outcome, and if what happened was criminal, the judge must conduct an investigation. And if it's beyond her means to do so, she must direct local law enforcement authorities to conduct an investigation. But if whatever was said in that jury room did not have an effect on the ultimate outcome, if it was merely offensive, even if it was criminal, but it didn't affect the ultimate outcome, if it was merely offensive, even if it was criminal,

but it didn't affect the ultimate outcome, then the court is probably going to let it go. There are a variety of reasons for this. One is the secrecy of the jury room. The other is the finality of these trials that can't be going on forever. If you're wondering if Nicholas Cruz can get another penalty phase, the answer is no. Under no circumstances could he get another penalty phase unless the jurors said that this holdout juror had been bribed or something like that. But even that would not qualify for the penalty phase. The state gets one shot to prove him death penalty eligible. And if they fail for whatever reason, they failed for good. Morris, we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.