I have a very difficult motion to present to your Honor that is based on conversations that were caused in chambers as relating to a sitting juror; and the motion that I bring before your Honor is to have that juror excused because of the conversations that took place on the record in this case with that juror.
And although we have great empathy with the court as trying to do everything humanly possible to make the conditions for this jury tolerable, livable and in a way that this jury can eventually hear all the evidence and reach a verdict, we are compelled under the law to bring to the court's attention what we believe was a violation clearly of the constitutional rights to an independent and fair jury of our client, Mr. Simpson. And we believe that the court, although noble in its desire and purpose to try to alleviate any potential financial hardship that this particular juror has suffered, has in fact created a legal condition that now has put this juror in a special place. And what I--
What action has the court taken that puts this juror in a special place at this point?
That's right. But the court also indicated I believe that there would be some effort made on the part of the court that would in fact result in a financial hardship of this juror being relieved. And since that financial hardship has been discussed amongst other members of the jury by this juror, we feel now that that juror, just from the conversations with your Honor and from your Honor's indication that the court would be willing to look into financial aid as well as other support from the court regarding a rental income property, that that has now affected this jury--this juror in a way that it might cause other jurors to feel that they are entitled to similar types of consideration, to similar types of compensation. The court has not made any ruling whatsoever nor has the court done anything yet. However, I think it was clear to that juror, who was very comfortable at the end of the conversation, that this court, as it always has towards jurors, was going to do everything possible to try to alleviate that hardship. And we believe just in doing that, this juror now may feel a special kinship to your Honor.
Well, I've done this for a number of jurors. I have gone out of my way to make sure jurors have been transported out of state to attend families' funerals and gone out of my way and spent county funds to do that. Juror 247 the other day had a problem that we had to deal with that the court made special efforts to do that. Are you suggesting that every juror for whom this court has made efforts, special efforts unique to that juror, that those jurors should be excused, if you are making that motion?
Because your position is inconsistent with the court's treatment of all the other jurors.
No. And we commend the court and in many instances joined with the court and acknowledged that those things were justified. What this case--and this issue we believe is different because this involves substantial proposed financial compensation retroactive for several months, not something protracted, something that may come up in the future, something of an emergency or something that would come up just once. This is something that involves a financial issue which we believe is separate and distinct from the other very personal issues that the court has shown great empathy for and properly so to the jury and we have concurred with that.
I seem to recollect, Mr. Shapiro, that when one of the jurors was excused and you chose to take a writ to the court of appeal, that you urged that this court should go to a higher level of vigilance in keeping each and every member of this jury intact and on this jury and you've urged--you have--you took the position that is not just reasonable cause regarding excusing jurors, that I should take a heightened level of scrutiny to each one of these decisions. So I think this is an inconsistent position with your prior position.
KEY QUOTEThat is absolutely correct. But we believe in this case, that by separating one juror based on financial considerations, that it violates the basic tenets of the United States Constitution and the constitution of this great state and gives unequal compensation financially in a significant way to one juror as opposed to 12 others and two alternates. And I am sure that all of these jurors have tremendous hardships that would greatly be alleviated with the largesse of this court and by any type of compensation, but we believe constitutionally that violates Mr. Simpson's right to have a fair and impartial jury where each juror is treated as one and the same. And this gives the impression of--whether it is right or wrong, but it gives the appearance that special treatment is being given to a juror. And we are not saying that your Honor has singled out this juror for special treatment. This juror came to your Honor. This juror demonstrated financial hardship and this juror was apparently in a condition where this juror could no longer continue on this jury because of the great financial hardship this juror was suffering based on some rental income property, and the court sought to alleviate that problem. It is our position, however, that such relief, however wonderful and compassion--
KEY QUOTEHowever noble--that's right. That's a better word--however noble the court's decision was, it is not a constitutional right that this court enjoys.
Yes. Your Honor, we have also--just for the record, we have filed the motion. And the other thing that it does, your Honor, is, it puts a juror in a position where the juror now might feel that if this continues and if the court is going to compensate a juror for lack of income in a rental property, that this juror may have an added interest in prolonging any type of--
Miss Clark apparently has a funny bone that has been touched. That this juror might have a financial incentive for wanting to prolong any type of deliberations. Now, we don't believe realistically that any juror wants to do anything other than end this and end this quickly, but we pointed that out in a footnote and I think it's important to add.
Your Honor, and we would like to get an answer as soon as possible so that we can take a writ on this matter. We feel it's that important a constitutional issue.
Well, we may have somebody come forth from the public and volunteer to alleviate this problem outside of the court. Who knows? It may go away.
KEY QUOTEwe are compelled under the law to bring to the court's attention what we believe was a violation clearly of the constitutional rights to an independent and fair jury of our client, Mr. Simpson
Are you suggesting that every juror for whom this court has made efforts, special efforts unique to that juror, that those jurors should be excused, if you are making that motion?
I seem to recollect, Mr. Shapiro, that when one of the jurors was excused and you chose to take a writ to the court of appeal, that you urged that this court should go to a higher level of vigilance in keeping each and every member of this jury intact
That is absolutely correct. But we believe in this case, that by separating one juror based on financial considerations, that it violates the basic tenets of the United States Constitution
Well, we may have somebody come forth from the public and volunteer to alleviate this problem outside of the court. Who knows? It may go away.