How's this for a juror's view of the case? I don't quite get the analogy:
“It sort of reminded me, when I was in Brooklyn years ago and there was a blackout, and the lower-income people were stealing refrigerators and TVs, and they felt that was due to them,” said the juror, Yvonne Fernandez, 52, who works in the control room for the TruTV television channel, formerly CourtTV. “I feel that somewhere along the line, he felt, and his wife felt, that it was due to them. The story is so tragic and so sad.”
Sounds like she spent too much time in the control room watching Nancy Grace. I'm surprised the defense didn't use a preemptory challenge on her, just based on her employer.
Marshall's lead lawyer, Fred Hafetz (disclosure, he's an old friend and I think he's a terrific lawyer) after the verdict:
As he left the courthouse, Mr. Marshall’s lead lawyer, Frederick P. Hafetz, faulted jurors, asserted that the case should not have been in criminal court, and promised an appeal. “I’m stunned by the verdict, greatly disappointed with what the jury did,” he said.
“This case should have been left to probate court. He’s 85 years old, these charges are not criminal charges. Cases of these kinds of issues are always resolved in the probate court,” he continued. “I don’t know of any other case, in my experience, where there were essentially will issues that got decided in a criminal case.” He added, “Just like I said in my summation, he loved his mother and she loved him.”
It was not a quick deliberation, and one juror had asked to be released saying she felt threatened. The Judge refused:
The apparent strain among jurors became public on Monday, when they sent out a note that read, “Due to heated argument, a juror feels personally threatened by comments made by another juror.” “With regards to her personal safety,” the note continued, “she wishes to be dismissed anonymously.”
Justice Bartley sent the jury back to continue, encouraging its members to “let the touchstone of your deliberations be respect and civility.”
The case was the product of an investigation by the "Elder Abuse Unit" which is part of the Special Prosecutions Bureau of the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
Does anyone agree with Marshall and his lawyers that this an estate case rather than a fraud or elder abuse case?
TalkLeft didn't cover this trial, so here are some related articles:
Here are some pictures of Mrs. Astor's New York Apartment, which was originally put up for sale at $46 million.
This is what I remember reading about the case a few years ago, after which I tuned it out.
She wears torn nightgowns and sleeps on a couch that smells of urine. Her bland diet includes pureed peas and oatmeal. Her dogs, once a source of comfort, are kept locked in a pantry.
A court filing alleges that this is the life of 104-year-old Brooke Astor, the multimillionaire Manhattan socialite who dedicated much of her vast fortune to promoting culture and alleviating human misery.
I have no idea if the jury made the right call. Elder abuse sucks. But isn't it just another form of elder abuse to send an 85 year old non-violent offender to prison, even if he's an elder abuser himself?
