BLT:
It took the jury less than eight hours to conclude that Palfrey was a proper madam — this after a trial that lasted five days and featured 13 former call girls and three former johns as witnesses. We caught up with the jury foreman, Lamont Smith, after the trial. Smith, 57, a clerical researcher for the Daughters of the American Revolution, says it was a “different” experience.
BLT: “I’ll say. I was scandalized just sitting there. Did you sympathize with the witnesses?”
Smith: “I can’t say I did. We all make choices — life is choice-driven. This is a case where people made bad choices.”
BLT: “Were you uncomfortable at all when they were talking about different sex acts or sexually transmitted diseases?”
Smith: “There were one or two of us who were really taken by some of the language. None of it made me uncomfortable, though. I was used to hearing that kind of thing.”
BLT: “Er ... really?”
Smith: “Yeah, I used to be a courtroom clerk in D.C. Superior Court. I heard all sorts of things.”
BLT: “So the jury wasn’t at all swayed by [defense attorney] Preston Burton’s argument that Palfrey was just a ‘taxi dispatcher’ who had no control over her employees' behavior on the job?"
Smith: “We believe Ms. Palfrey’s lawyer did a great job, but the government’s evidence was overwhelming. The testimony, all the documents — it was insurmountable.”
BLT: “Walk me through the deliberations.”
Smith: “We went through each of the counts, one by one, looking at all the evidence. After that, each of the jurors talked for a little bit, so we could get a general feeling of where everybody was at. Then we went over the counts again, doing a point/counterpoint kind of thing. Then we took a vote.”
BLT: “Just one?”
Smith: “Yup, unanimous the first time.”
BLT: “That’s quick work. Some people say this kind of prostitution is a victimless crime. Palfrey is probably going to prison for a while. Do you think it’s fair?”
Smith: “She put herself in that position when she broke the law.”
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/04/qa-with-a-palfr.html
2 comments:
Explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old. 12 jurors have a Rico/Racketeer charge that is so complex-ed that most lawyers don't understand it. But here we hear a jury foreman who as a clerk in a court say they needed only one vote to find Ms. Palfrey guilty. Now I'm to believe 12 adverage people who never attended law school could understand the guidelines to Racketeering and the Rico Act when most lawyers and Judges can't. One should ask the Judge why he allowed a Miscarriage of Justice to be done in his court. I hope Jean finds an attorney who will take her case pro bono and with the knowledge of Appellate Judges this guilty finding will be tossed out. Now the GOP better hope Larry Flynt doesn't step in to protect this innocent woman. Let's say they should wish for Jean to get the appeal then for Larry. Larry Flynt has the names of all the clients and the names are of those who would bring the GOP to their knees. Jean didn't want to embarrass anyone in this case, but Larry has no mercy for those who take advantage of woman.
I read a person's comment that thought Jean and the ladies were bad as even the Jury Foreman said. Well that tells me those people really don't believe in the bible. As God told Abraham to sleep with his concubine to have a son, Moses had two wives as he was tricked, Esther had to marry the King as she was given to him for a year of testing, Solomon had many wives and concubines and of course King David who had wives, concubines but wanted a soldiers wife. In all these men were blessed by God even with their acts towards woman. Yet the all and many Religious people of today mainly woman condemn woman and cheer the Johns. No wonder Religion in the US is so messed up.
"Yet the all and many Religious people of today mainly woman condemn woman and cheer the Johns. No wonder Religion in the US is so messed up."
Very well said, Jackie!
Post a Comment