May 28, 2016

Dumb and dumber or a jury that could not give a hoot?

The jury in the Todd Kinley case took an hour and 15 minutes to reach their decision. Considering the time it takes to pick out a foreperson and fill out two forms, assuming they even looked over the law and jury instructions, they came to this decision in less than 50 to 55 minutes.

The defense did not dispute the facts, they acknowledged guilty on Count 2, drunk in Public. The jury agreed.

Did it make a difference that they started deliberations around 11 on Friday, before a three day weekend? Would it have made any diference if the indecent exposure had been charged as a felony? The jury had 7 men and 5 women, including a social services supervisor.

Most of us, who heard these closing arguments, including another media colleague, were shocked at the jury's decision.

Then again, this is the jury, who chose a foreperson, who wrote not guilty instead of guilty for Count 2 and then yelled in open court, "I am terrible foreperson, that was not our decision." The mistake had to be rectified and the Judge had to ask the jurors if that was, indeed their decision.

What this jury did not see is that after they left, Kinley signed a waiver to his right for a hearing on a second case. Kinley, who has a fugitive, felony warrant out of Montana, was cuffed and taken into custody. He was out of custody for the misdemeanor.

No one is allowed to show emotion while the verdict is being read and court is still in session, but after the verdict of not guilty was read for Count 1, Mr. Luke Brownfield slapped Kinley on the back,  congratulating him.

Judge John Feeney, in his concluding instructions, told the jury that the instruction on voluntary intoxication was "offered for a limited purpose." and it was not a defense to public intoxication.

Out of the presence of the jury, Deputy District Attorney Whitney Barnes won a motion that the defense could not argue memory loss. The judge also ruled that Ms. Barnes could argue in rebuttal, no such evidence was submitted.

If you have read the evidence presented by the People, with hardly any cross examination by Mr.  Brownfield and then heard the closing arguments, the only conclusion is that in Humboldt County, you can be drunk with your blood alcohol limit twice the legal limit, the defense does not provide any evidence that you also took prescription pills and smoked weed, you can be jacking off early morning facing traffic on a freeway, cars slow down and brake, an off duty police officer sees your erect penis, you pull your pants up right away when you see a police car, but the jury did not think that the People provided enough evidence that it was Kinley's intention to direct attention to his genitals.

This from a man who gave a false name to the police officer and a false story about why he was masturbating in public.

Glad this jury was not the one to decide a rape or murder charge.






9 comments:

  1. you know that opening and closing arguments are not evidence, nor are they to be interpreted as evidence to any jury member.
    so actually the opening and closing don't count...

    jon, my guess is unless you were sitting in the jury room while they deliberated you would understand why they voted as they have.

    - without your being in the deliberation room i find disparaging remarks about the jury a cheap shot from someone who knows better.
    judi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judi, I am well aware that opening and closing arguments are not evidence. Was the jury? I have posted the evidence that was given on this case. I have to post the brief closing by Mr. Brownfield and rebuttal by Ms. Barnes.

    You were not in the jury room, were you? Sounds like you maybe a juror, maybe someone close to a juror, someone favoring the defense or Kinley. The law, not the arguments, are clear on what intent is.You can think I am disparaging, that is your opinion. The evidence was clear that he knew what he was doing and what he was doing was wrong.

    What is a cheap shot is you not having the guts to put your name. You seem to think you know me. Yes, I do know better. Anywhere else in the country, even any other jury in Humboldt County would have held Kinley responsible. Don't blame me for a jury that seemed to have voted on emotion and exactly what Mr. Brownfield said in his opening argument.

    Maybe you are okay with a perv wanking off in public, I am not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What Brownfield said in his closing argument, although the drunk and skunk bs defense was in opening. I will have the post up on his closing shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. john, i don't know you, i have a lot of respect for what you do here. my name is judi, you and i have talked on the phone concerning a different per, and why i wasn't able to get any info about his case results. you researched it for me and got me the info.

    my thoughts about you article of the jury results are that more respect needs to be shown to those who sit on any trial at all times. we can

    i very much disagree that to insult these jurors is uncalled for. that was really my only point.

    unless you were IN the room deliberating, you do not know why the jury decided as they have. maybe you're right, they just wanted out of this disgusting thing altogether.
    but we have no idea, do we.

    so give respect.
    and act respectfully.
    to me also, i request. i didn't deserve those cuts. face to face i'd say f.u.
    seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Judi, if you read my blog, you know that this is the first time I have been so vocal on a jury's decision. You also should know I give my opinion. And, I am respectful to jurors, I get along with them, I respect them and most only talk to me. You want respect, you need to do the same. Your remark that I was disparaging and a cheap shot was uncalled for and a highly emotional reaction to a case in which you did not attend the trial for and I believe you when you say you don't know anyone. Whatever disrespect you may feel about jurors may or may not have to do with other experiences, it is too emotional for just this post. You made your point twice, now. I never said I knew why the jury decided. That is the purpose of questions raised in my post. I have finished my posts on this topic. What I do know is the law given to them, the instructions given to them and I did attend the entire trial. You did not. This is my blog, I give my opinion. You do not have to agree with me but after the second comment on your continuing to call me out and being disrespectful, my opinion, I am done debating this topic. Maybe you need to take some time and think why you are having such an emotional reaction to this. This jury disregarded the law and an instruction given to them. I don't have to be in the jury room to see the words that the juror expressed were right out of Mr. Brownfield's mouth. Speaking of respect, this is a holiday weekend, what I do is a service to the public. If you appreciate what I do, you will respect the rest of my time this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't worry John.
    Not only do you he every right to criticize a jury on your blog, you are also dead right!
    I can't believe the jury did not convict on this "slam dunk" case.

    Do you know if Montana extradited this loser? They usually don't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hugh, he is scheduled to be transported. I will follow up on the review date.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, if a first offense, and since outdoors this is only a Misdemeanor. It was not charged as a felony because it can't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gather that, Allan. Does not change my opinion of the jury's decision.

      Delete