Miguel Angel Garcia had a juror on his side

[criminallyinsane]

Based on a doctor's expert testimony during a 2009 trial, the physical evidence was clear: a seven-year-old Anaheim boy living near Disneyland had suffered a bite to his penis and his torn rectum had bled after a bathroom encounter with his mother's boyfriend, Miguel Angel Garcia.

In addition, the boy told his mother, who'd been working during the incident, that Garcia had also given him a blow job after raping him.

But Juror #6 refused to hold Garcia responsible or even to deliberate the facts, according to court records.

Other jurors, who had no problem arriving at guilty verdicts at the conclusion of the trial, became frustrated by the holdout and told Superior Court Judge Carla Singer. The foreman wondered out loud if the lone juror had a mental "competency" problem. Still, the juror refused to budge. Singer ordered the panel not to quit.

Several hours later--after key testimony had been reviewed, the lone juror dropped her stance and the jury reached the necessary unanimous guilty verdicts: In September 2007, 24-year-old Garcia had committed oral copulation, sexual penetration, two forcible lewd acts and sodomy on the boy.

Judge Singer responded by sentencing Garcia to 40 years to life in prison.

Seeking a new trial, the molester appealed, arguing that Singer had violated his right to a fair trial by withholding from him the identity and contact information for the holdout juror. He said he wanted to know if the majority of the panel had intimidated her "in fear of being slandered . . . or humiliated again."

Last week, a California Court of Appeal based in Santa Ana backed Singer.

That ruling--written by Justice Richard D. Fybel--leaves Garcia stuck. If a future parole board is kind, his first chance to return to freedom will be in 2050. He will be 66 years old.

what the fuck???? how much more evidence did she need?????

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/12/kid_rape_in_anaheim_left_eleve.php

 

[badfish76]

Juror Six was probably one of those fucking NAMBLA freaks.

We should tie Juror Six to the pervert and torture them both for a long, long time.

 

[Dakota]

Hold out jurors during deliberations are not all that uncommon. Some people want to be absolutely sure before they render a verdict. Obviously, Juror Six came to his/her senses and a conviction was returned (and upheld). I guess I read too many "verdict watches" to be surprised.

The original post leaves US with a clear picture of what the writer wants us to see BUT tells us nothing about what was actually presented at trial. Maybe there was a witnesses or experts that swayed the juror and not the others?

I'm not sticking up for the defendant (or the juror's competency), just saying that some people take their DUTY as a juror very seriously and there is much more to a trial than what is presented here.