Today's court meeting was suppose to be the sentencing hearing, which had been previously postponed at the request of the Defense. They wanted time to investigate some of the Jurors. What their investigator supposedly found was that one of the Jurors knew second-hand about McClish being on trial for rape charges unrelated to his current case, and had told another Juror about it, from what I understand.
The Defense asked that the Jury's sealed documents be unsealed. The Prosecution, and later the Judge, pointed out that the Juror (#5) had revealed this information at the Jury Selection. That the Defense could have dismissed this Juror and chose not to. That the Defense had the opportunity to question this Juror, which they did, but did not pry into the subject for an extended period. That McClish himself was active in talking with his Defense Attorney T.W. during this selection, and could have voiced a concern, or asked that the Juror be removed through T.W. and did neither.
The Judge also explained that EVERYDAY in court, he began the proceedings by asking the Jury if they had been exposed to any outside information, and none ever expressed that they had. He closed the court EVERYDAY by saying that they are not to discuss the Trial with anyone outside of the courtroom, for any reason, under any circumstance, nor are they allowed to do any research outside of the court on any topic related to the case. Including the background of the Defendant. And that they are to notify the court if they, or any juror they know of, is exposed to any outside information, or if any juror exposes the rest of them to any outside information.
A Juror at one point in the trial overheard another Juror at lunch with his mother commenting about the trial. That juror was berated for this by the Judge, and I believe ultimately dismissed, though I cannot recall for certain. If such a small infraction, sharing some information with his mother, was cause for this Juror to be reported by another, and berated by the Judge, there is no doubt in my mind that if one Juror had shared outside knowledge, namely that McClish is a convicted [**serial**] rapist, that at least one, if not more, Juror would have come forward and reported it.
It was revealed that the indiscretion by one Juror in regards to sharing outside information with another Juror happened after the verdict. A unanimous Guilty verdict had already been reached before the information was shared -- which again, had already been disclosed even before the trial started, and the Defense had ample time to dismiss or raise concerns, and didn't. So this information had no bearing on the verdict. It could not have swayed the verdict, to imply such, as I believe the Defense was in order to get a retrial or mistrial, is like saying I could have had an effect on the outcome of WWII, when I wasn't even alive at the time. Idiotic.
The court order for the Juror Information Release was denied. The Defense attorney had ample chance to question Juror #5 about the knowledge of McClish's prior rape charges she had garnered from her Husband. He had the opportunity to dismiss her using a Peremptory Challenge, and didn't. T.W. attempted to say that he had used all of his Peremptory Challenge's, but it was noted that at the time of Juror #5 revealing the information he had some remaining and used them elsewhere.
Judge Burdick went on to discuss the rights of the Jurors themselves. Noting that they all expressed that they did not want to speak with the public, News, or anyone for that matter about the trial once it was over. They waited in the Courthouse until the public left after the verdict before they dispersed. They have a right to privacy, and he was not going to unseal their records as no evidence was given that it was necessary to encroach on their privacy. Their questionnaires were placed in the Court's sealed records (which in these questionnaires Juror #5 had written that she had been aware of a previous Rape allegation against Mr. McClish to some small degree). Further proof that this was a known factor dating back to the selection of the Jury.
One thing that all of us can take away from this is that as a Juror, especially one sitting on a murder trial, it is never okay to discuss the trial. Doing so with another Juror, even after the trial is over, can be grounds to delay or call for a mistrial. Under no circumstance would I ever speak about what went on during a trial to anyone, even years down the line.
McClish has tried to drag his feet from Day 1. He sought (and lost) several appeals to his rape convictions. He fired his Defense Attorney. Now he is attempting the same charade with his Murder conviction. There is another hearing coming up in which councils will not be present (Wednesday, February 22 at 9:00AM) where I am sure he will attempt to give grounds to fire his current attorney, maybe even try and say he was unfairly represented. More delays and charades. He has been found guilty many times over, and there are even several major crimes he hasn't been charged with that has clear cut evidence that would lead to an easy conviction; but there is little need when his guilt for the double murder is so easily seen by prosecutors -- and apparently the Jurors as well. He is a multiple offender, by my count he has over 4 strikes on his record, and you only need 3 in order to invoke a mandatory 25 years to life sentence in the State of California. There was never a doubt in my mind that he was guilty of everything he was charged with, this shouldn't come as a shock as I believe I disclosed these sentiments in my first post, and he got MORE than a fair trial.
In my eyes a fair trial would have allowed much of the evidence that was deemed inadmissible. He should have been disclosed as having been convicted of raping a female employee, as it goes to show his level of 'respect' for younger female employees he was surrounded by, including Mrs. Asha Veil. There was witness testimony that wasn't allowed that would have painted him more accurately than he was for the Jury, which would have swayed their opinion of him to the negative, and this was not allowed. His Defense Attorney, Mr. Thomas Walraff, in my opinion, represented him to the best of his ability. If I were ever to be on trial, even after watching all of these proceedings day in and day out, despite him losing this case, I would be more than comfortable having him represent me. He was very vocal in raising concerns with the slightest thing. He, from what I could tell, purposely mis-dated events in an attempt to trip up witness testimony. I thought it was unnecessarily sleazy, many probably thought it unintentional, but I would want the best possible Defense for myself. And that is what I think McClish got.
There is only so much you can do to Defend someone guilty of Rape and Murder from their rightful punishment. I believe T.W. gave McClish more than his fair Defense, and is continuing to try and do so, even after the Guilty verdict. But with how prepared DA Jeff Rosell has been, with the amount of evidence he and the large team of experts behind him have, there isn't really a Defense for a guilty man. Even the State went easy on him, when the Death Penalty should have been on the table. When further charges revealed during investigations and his prison stays arose, they weren't levied by the State.
No he got his fair day in court. He dragged his family through the spotlight and the mud during this whole process. For once in your life Mike, think of others before you act. Accept your guilt, as you and only you know you truly are, face your consequences like a man, and retreat to your jail cell for the remainder of your life where you know you belong. Further delays and appeals only keep this wound fresh for your family, let them and the people in this county heal, and quit being a drain on their tax dollars. You had your day in court, your peers saw your guilt, it's about time you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment