A posting on this very subject from 2005:

"Certain subjects are deemed too complicated, not only for jurors, but for ordinary judges. There are special Military Courts. There are special Tax Courts. Is the matter of terrorism akin to a case of shoplifting, or assault and battery, or even murder, or does it require special kinds of knowledge, including an understanding of the tenets of Islam, the worldview that those tents naturally engender, the opaque language of parts of the Qur'an, the principles of kitman and taqiyya? Is this the kind of knowledge that those who make up the jury pool are likely to comprehend, or be made to comprehend? And since a great many people have a great deal of respect for anything called a "religion," and since Islam is called, by many, a "religion," can one expect the necessary ability to stand back, to analyze, to be skeptical even, or perhaps especially, of someone who is called a "cleric"? Can even the phrase "in the path of God" be understood properly? And what happens if, in court, the usual highly selective quotation of Qur'anic passages occurs? And what if, as is quite likely, the defendants in such cases are, to an untutored eye, perfectly nice people, familiy men (and how), who raise their children with all those family values (and if we are to listen to Mustafa Akyol's siren song, practically Kansas fundamentalists in their desire to promote intelligent design and to find, at long last, with their "Christian brethren," a way out of the supposed moral mess that "modern science" has created).

Congress -- Tancredo, any one -- must look at this, and figure out how to set up separate courtgs, specialized courts, with special prosecutors. See if there is anyhting to be learned, anywhere, for example in the operation that Jean-Louis Bruguiere runs in France, to deal with the problem of dumb juries.

A clearly-guilty defendant let off with his freedom and his Heisman Trophy, who cannot conceivably be a further menace now that his wife is dead, is bad enough. Letting off anyone like Sami al-Arian heartens others like him everywhere, and further endangers all of us. Sentimentalism about juries has to go. Just as, in tort cases, these juries choose mindlessly to redistribute the wealth -- unable to do so at the ballot box, they do so in the courtroom, but the recipients of the transfer of gigantic sums from defendnat corporations do not get spread around, but rather go to a particular plaintiff who hardly deserves the preposterous settlement, and of course to the lawyer. That too is a problem: the Jury that is determined to redistribute wealth in the clumsiest, and most unfair, manner possible.

But this is far worse.

[Posted by: Hugh at December 7, 2005 7:46 AM]

Posted by: Hugh at October 4, 2007 1:34 PM

"Sounds like jury mullahfication."

This was a comment on the LGF website. Even though there is nothing funny about what is happening with the muslim problem throughout the world, I couldn't help but get a good belly laugh.

Posted by: winemkr at October 4, 2007 1:45 PM

"Sounds like jury mullahfication."

This was a comment on the LGF website. Even though there is nothing funny about what is happening with the muslim problem throughout the world, I couldn't help but get a good belly laugh.

Posted by: winemkr at October 4, 2007 1:46 PM

Someone seems stuck midway in a mood swing on the moral equivalency pendulum. Anticipating an appeal will follow in this case, in spite of how this glitch is resolved, we'll see this drag on until a Sharia trained judge is sitting on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Shawmut at October 4, 2007 1:51 PM

If I were judgee, I'd have them removed immediately, and alternate replacing forthwith (they always have alternates)...to wait invites mistrial.

If this "juror" is mOslem, it's conflict of interest /miconduct this late in the game...they could've excused themselves for conflicting views early on, so it's a good bet this person was allowed to stay on by the defense counsel, thus misconduct on their part as well.

This reeks of a setup.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 4, 2007 2:02 PM

Is the Juror a Muslim? Wouldn't surprise me.

What a mess we've made. I curse multiculturalism.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at October 4, 2007 2:07 PM

Is the Juror a Muslim? Wouldn't surprise me.

What a mess we've made. I curse multiculturalism.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at October 4, 2007 2:12 PM

Meanwhile, Yemen signed a $15 billion dollar deal to build 5 nuclear power plants, with a company that has never built one before. Parts of north Yemen are pro al-Qaeda, so US approval of the deal would be unlikely. In any case, the government official who inked the deal, went to school with a company official. This stinks of bribery and Arab stupidity. Therefore, Bush klepto-dhimmis might like it. The President should be mouth soaped every time he makes perverse use of the word "freedom." Freedom and Islam mix like oil and water.

http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2007/09/30/yemens-nuclear-deal-another-scam/

Posted by: supercargo at October 4, 2007 2:23 PM

There is alot riding on this for the muslims.

The authorities need to question the juries if there has been threats to them or their families.

I am betting that the muslims have been in communication with a few family members and described what will happen to them.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 4, 2007 2:23 PM

1) Fear of retaliation by the terrorist groups whose financiers are on trial.

Islam is doing what it does best.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at October 4, 2007 2:28 PM

Doesn't make sense not to vote, vote and hang the jury , not get kicked off to make some hazy political statement.

Posted by: GrennBeck at October 4, 2007 2:47 PM

There is a fourth possibility, the Juror is a Muslim. Can't they ask? or is such a question off limts.

Posted by: rational at October 4, 2007 3:01 PM

I've been saying for years that it's high time to do away with the unanimous-jury system. As things stand, one recalcitrant jurist with an agenda can thwart the dispensation of justice, with debilitating financial and psychological consequences for the nation. A super-majority of 8 or 9 votes to convict or acquit should be adopted.

On the other hand, in localities where Muslims are a majority - and the jury selection process is destined to reflect as much, even this reform may not be sufficient.

Perhaps Hugh is correct. We need either to institute special terrorism courts or try all terror cases in military courts.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 4, 2007 3:01 PM

http://movies.go.com/civic-duty/d870226/thriller&CMP=OTC-RY3575180518

Here's a Movie I rented and while the Critics
mock it as "Paranoia" over the 9/11 attack that we now see as valid by the HLF and CAIR exposure as sympathetic to Jihad and Terrorism based revenge attacks.

The Movie hints at HLF and CAIR along with the several CAIR members convicted or deported for Terrorism relate Charges , the FBI agent reminded me of the person I phoned at the CSIS TipLine after really odd things going on at a local House
that had Middle east people going in and out with luggage and cars with foreign Plates or out of Province Plates.

Now we see that CAIR and Hooper found a loophole to silence the Reporting by Lawsuits against Civilians like their "Flying-Imams" case
to drag people through the Courts and ruin the lives of mere Citizens trying to preserve the Liberties and Freedoms other people paid for long ago and in 2 World wars.

The same Critics that can't see the Creeping-Sharia and false Islamophobia in the Movie that most Jw/Dw'er's will catch , are the same Yahoos still running to CAIR for opinions about Terrorism and Terrorists by those "Misunderstanders" of the "Religion of peace" .

93 Minutes and well worth the time for those that caught on to the real Whahabi-Islam threat hiding among us and hiding behind a Team of Lawyers at CAIR.

BTW

Someone thought the TV News videos were flawed
but I ound 2 possible reasons for it , the first is the CNN copy-right where we see the CVV Logo that is merely made by removing the verticle up-stroke on the capital "N" , next is the News-Bar repeating the updates at the bottom which goes by from the Left to Right but prints the words in a Right to Left reading which is how a Arabic reading person with English skills would understand it and it won't look like the CNN template .
I used my headset and caught many of the subtle undertones by background Radio and TV reports about Terror plots of Islamic Charities.

Posted by: ala-sux at October 4, 2007 3:02 PM

If one juror refuses to vote it's a mistrial. If one juror votes not guilty and his/her eleven peers vote to convict, it's still a mistrial.

That's our system, as imperfect as it may be. Except that it's not imperfect. It's a damn good system.

Screw it. Judge should declare a mistrial and 7-9 months from now tee it up again. Just do it.

I would, however, take a hard look at the background of the juror "refusing to vote". That is a bit different from "voting guilty" or "not guilty". A lot different. Too little info at this time to come to a conclusion.

Could this be a muslim juror in disguise exercising his/her obligation to jihad? Perhaps. We just don't have enough info at this point in time to say.

Posted by: omvi at October 4, 2007 3:09 PM

One juror has already been dismissed and replaced with an alternate causing deliberations to have to start again.No reason was given for that jurors dismissal.Unless there are no more alternates why hasn't this juror been dismissed? Not voting makes no sense as the lone juror can vote one way or another and "hang" the jury.My guess is the hold out is a Muslim who does not want to vote guilty or hang the jury and be identified in the press.

Posted by: Roxane at October 4, 2007 3:12 PM

Why hasn't the juror that refuses to vote been held in contempt? He/she has sworn to obey the instructions of the court. Clearly he/she has not done that.

Posted by: one of the chosen people at October 4, 2007 3:18 PM

If you are a juror in most states, you receive very little compensation for your time and trouble. If the evidence produced at trial shows that the defendant(s) are guilty but, due to the nature and scope of the criminal endeavor, your vote for conviction may place you and your family at personal risk, what do you do?

We should not junk the jury system, but in cases of this nature, the anonymity of jurors needs to be carefully safeguarded. This type of case would be, to a juror, at least as scary as a murder conspiracy trial brought against a Mafia leader.

Also, certain types of cases involving organized violence designed to overthrow our government and legal system cannot always be dealt with exclusively through the criminal justice system, especially when the persons use freedom religion and speech to organize and motivate, and then send out individuals to commit terrorist acts which cannot be deterred because the perpetrators are suicidal.

An organized and violent minority, acting as a group, is capable of intimidating a much larger majority which consists of atomized individuals who can be cowed one by one.

The entity through which the majority needs to organize and act to counter such threats, is the government. But first the people need to elect a government which understands the nature of the threat and possesses the will to act against it, and is willing to adopt the means necessary. If we wish to fight the threat without giving up our own freedoms, we need to be free to discriminate against the group from which the threat emanates.

That will not happen so long as Islam continues to have a protected status as a religion.

Posted by: Karl2 at October 4, 2007 3:20 PM

Either the juror is a muslim, or he/she has been threatened. That's my guess.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at October 4, 2007 3:47 PM

An organized and violent minority, acting as a group, is capable of intimidating a much larger majority which consists of atomized individuals who can be cowed one by one. Posted by: Karl2

And that is the problem.

We delegate to the government to act justly on our behalf. The trouble is that the government itself is intimidated by the oraganised and violent Moslem minority. Small fixes will just not do in such cases. And a big fix will destroy our judicial system built over generations.

This, and the steady dimunition of our freedoms, is the price we are paying for allowing Moslems to immigrate to the West.

Posted by: DP111 at October 4, 2007 4:07 PM

"Either the juror is a muslim, or he/she has been threatened. That's my guess."

The point is, a group with a reputation for violence can intimidate an individual without needing to make an overt threat. Knowing the reputation and history of the violent group, the isolated individual knows he can be singled out without being told this will happen.

Individuals wishing to oppose jihadist organizations need to be effectively protected through membership in a larger group which has shown the solidarity, common sense, and will to oppose the violent minority. That group, in a democracy, needs to be government.

Posted by: Karl2 at October 4, 2007 4:13 PM

Quite disturbing string of events, no doubt!

Posted by: guru at October 4, 2007 4:30 PM

If he's a coreligionist of the defendants, I mean, isn't he bound to side with the Muslims no matter what? Could he be made to renounce Islam before being allowed to serve on a jury?

Suppose a Muslim killed someone that the Koran says deserves to be killed unless he converts or pays up. Would there be any mystery about that juror's vote? The more faithful a Muslim is to his beliefs, the less appropriate it is that he should be seated on a jury.

"The real object of the First Ammendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which would give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." -Justice Joseph Story

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 4, 2007 4:36 PM

look at the picture, ghastly look!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7027405.stm

Posted by: guru at October 4, 2007 4:41 PM

We should not junk the jury system, but in cases of this nature, the anonymity of jurors needs to be carefully safeguarded. Says Karl

Maybe not junk the jury system but revamp the courts with an entirely new set of procedural rules to deal with these cases. Perhaps juries of 6, or military tribunals. Or judge trials only.

Congress should establish a separate court system just for cases involving sedition,jihad funding and other related crimes.

My take of this juror is the fear factor has set in. If he/she was muslim or sympathizer he/she could just vote not guilty and do his/her Islamic duty that way. I'll bet he/she believes the defendants are guilty but he is just scared to cast the guilty vote.

The juror did swear an oath to perform as a juror. I think the judge can administer some punishment (contempt of court) for failure to not cast a vote.

Posted by: USorThem at October 4, 2007 5:39 PM

We should not junk the jury system, but in cases of this nature, the anonymity of jurors needs to be carefully safeguarded. Says Karl

Maybe not junk the jury system but revamp the courts with an entirely new set of procedural rules to deal with these cases. Perhaps juries of 6, or military tribunals. Or judge trials only.

Congress should establish a separate court system just for cases involving sedition,jihad funding and other related crimes.

My take of this juror is the fear factor has set in. If he/she was muslim or sympathizer he/she could just vote not guilty and do his/her Islamic duty that way. I'll bet he/she believes the defendants are guilty but he is just scared to cast the guilty vote.

The juror did swear an oath to perform as a juror. I think the judge can administer some punishment (contempt of court) for failure to not cast a vote.

Posted by: USorThem at October 4, 2007 5:41 PM

“I refuse to pass judgment on this person because if I did, my punishment would be that I would be killed or crucified, or have my hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or would be expelled out of the land. Such would be my degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter mine will be an awful doom.”

Sounds like a valid concern to me. Add another straw to the camel’s back.

Posted by: pez at October 4, 2007 5:54 PM

One thing for sure...if a specific juror was intimidated/threatened (if they're NOT mOslem), only way they could've gotten their ID/name/etc was via defense counsel, and that's jury tampering, a big felony.

If the juror IS mOslem, it's only because the defense wanted them on the panel, then it's juror misconduct/tampering, again via defense counsel, another felony.

If the juror is mOslem, and is simply intimidated, either via defense counsel, or by someone who knows them, it's STILL jury tampering...

In any case, i'd look into the defense counsel dealings, to rule in or out, any felonious activity (I lay odds it was them)...and then go after whomever threatened them.

Either way, it's conflict of interest on defense counsels part...either by failing to abide by protocol, or by active willful misconduct.
If the judge is smart, he'd nail those bastards to the wall...today.

And that doesn't even cover stalking, blackmail, extortion, etc...obviously there's a LOT riding on this, lest there not be such a big attempt at jury influence...of any kind.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 4, 2007 7:27 PM

We tried to do just that, tgusa (special court)...
but seems someone one the Ways & Means CHAIR (*cough* *cough*) railed rabidly against the Patriot Act and had that eliminated forthwith...so now, we can't.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 4, 2007 7:48 PM

This is from Powerline and includes comments from someone who's been observing the trial.This person thinks that the jury is leaning towards guilty on at least some of the 42 counts and that the one juror refusing to vote is refusing to vote for conviction.
_______________________________________

Approaching a verdict, take 2

The jury is still deliberating in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. A reader who has been in the courtroom for the trial writes in response to my comments last night in "Approaching a verdict." I thought that the jury was probably leaning toward convictions and that a problematic juror who prompted the judge's Allen charge was a holdout. Our reader's observations play off the Dallas Morning News account of yesterday's proceedings. Our reader seems to misconstrue my post but to support my hunches. Her message in any event provides an interesting eyewitness report:

Why do you think the prosecutor’s objection to the timing of the charge the Judge gave indicates that the jurors might not have been considering convictions?

It seemed to me that the only reason a juror would refuse to vote is not wanting to take responsibility for convicting. Refusing to vote doesn’t really work in the reverse. I was in the courtroom and saw these jurors many times over about six weeks. My best guess is that one—and I saw at least three that might cop this refusal—is not wanting “to judge” these men. But the others looked like they understood fully what it meant when kindergarteners at their U.S. fundraisers (or at the kindergartens in Gaza HLF supported) entertained the crowd by singing songs about how they wanted to become martyrs in the Jihad and kill Jews. I think most of that jury understood what that means to a human being growing up under an indoctrination of hatred of others.

The first report that came out—the AP report which has consistently been shallow depth reporting in this trial—did not go into any of the options that the Judge has besides what he told this jury about how they would have to try the case over at great expense to both the government and the defense. The Dallas Morning News coverage actually went into two other options the judge has before he shuts this trial down, and one of those is bringing in yet another one of the alternates.

I don’t know which alternate juror was brought in last Wednesday. Of the three alternates was the worst juror—a lady who looked like she was sleeping or at least drowsing the whole trial—and the best juror, a man who paid keen attention and didn’t mind scrutinizing the defendants, the lawyers and the Muslim spectator gallery. He looked ex-military. If the alternate that went into the trial last Wednesday was the sleeping woman, then she is probably the one refusing to vote. If one of the two men were sent in, then there are two men on the regular jury that I would suspect as being the ones who are refusing to vote.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room. There has been almost zip coverage of this trial….too bad there won’t be any journalists tracking them down after the trial to get the scoop on what went on like there have been in some of the high profile celebrity trials. Priorities.

Posted by: Roxane at October 5, 2007 12:16 AM

Roxane:

Thanks... I had a similar experience when I was on jury duty and we had a juror who was reluctant to convict in spite of the overwhelming evidence on which the rest of us was certain.

We had to keep explaining to Miss Give Peace a Chance that conviction must be based on evidence, not feeling (which is what she kept on saying, that she didn't have the "feeling" that she could say "guilty".)

Eventually she conceded; I think half of us wanted to strangle her.

These people really frighten me.

Posted by: atheling at October 5, 2007 1:26 AM

I'd love to replace this juror.. :-)

Posted by: 2and2is5 at October 5, 2007 1:38 AM

guru

As I read the BBC piece on the poor poor Palis, it eventually came along to the family and the poor mother looking after her baby. At that moment, I thought "bet she has around 10 children". Sure enough, she is pregnant with her ninth.

These people, no matter how desperately poor, will continue to produce children with no thought whether they can properly look after them, give them a decent education and life. No thought like that ever enters their head. They believe, along with the BBC and their likes, that it is the duty of the rest of the world to look after these people and their children, for life.

The tragedy is that our governemnt dupes fall for it, even when knowing full well that these children are the future AK27 wielding thugs and suicide bombers.

Posted by: DP111 at October 5, 2007 5:57 AM

....I would suspect the troubled juror is a moveon.org dhimmicrat....just like my landlord...probably hates the US government and the anti-terrorists efforts....just like my moonbat dhimmi leftist landlord....I know the type....

.....once when my moonbat landlord went into an almost pro-Islamic rant, I fired back with many Qur'anic and Hadith quotes I had learned from my daily reading of JW and other websites....I provided examples of Islamic incidents that the MSM never reports.....I suggested to him that if he really knew about Islam he might just live longer....I recommended he read RS books and that he visit here and click on Hughs and Roberts past articlces availiable....

....It has been two months now since he last spoke to me; when he comes to the building to perform maintenance, he avoids me....I do not miss his moveon.org and dhimmi style rants....

...I suspect our politicians are doing the same...avoiding the truth and avoiding those who have learned something about Islam....

....some people are too weak minded to object to Islamic intolerance and Islamic violence...they are followers, not leaders....unfortunately they follow the leaders in the moveon.org type organizations...they become parrots....parroting those rants of the wacko left....disgusting....

....when you come to the fork in the road...I pray you make the right direction to go.....(follow those who take the time to study the methods, beliefs, and actions of those who desire to kill you) or (follow those who refuse to stand up to those who threaten to kill by any means possible...)....your decison soon be a no brainer....

....quit submitting...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 5, 2007 6:16 AM