Friday, July 17, 2009

A Juror has been excused. Be Prepared.

The tall thin woman juror with blue eyes in the back row has been excused, Weinberg called for a mistrial, (as always) and was denied (as always) and one of the alternate jurors has been sworn in.

The juror has talked extensively to one of our people on scene this afternoon. She was excused based on an answer to a question in her voir dire questionnaire, in part, apparently. We have her permission to use her name, but will not at the moment. [UPDATE: She does not want to talk to the press, and we will not be releasing her name, without her permission. ]

She told us that approximately 4 of the people believe that ayres is guilty, and many do not believe that he is guilty at all. She believed that he was guilty. She does not think that the forman will bend to a "not guilty" position.

It is early to tell: given the new juror, to a large extent, they will go back to square one, but I think we need to be prepared for a hung jury.

Initial indication from the excused juror is that most of the younger women on the jury do not believe that the boys were molested, and the men for the most part, do.


  1. How can you at this point be excused for an answer to a question on the Voir Dire, I mean that was weeks ago.

    I hope this is not another:

    Welcome to San Mateo County!

  2. Can she cause a mistrial by talking about what is going on?

  3. There is probably slightly more to the story. The fact that this juror was excused is really not the central issue to this post.

    That juror has provided us with information that is not good news, and, while the release of that juror will either maintain the status quo, or tip the balance the wrong way, it's already looking not so good after 4 days of deliberation.

    Pray for a miracle.

  4. Dear Deep Sounding,

    No matter what the outcome, there has been a certain amount of justice which has occurred. Granted, you would like to see him punished, but like most who commit crimes, he will always be in his own eyes innocent like 99% of those incarcerated.

    On the other hand, your site has been informative and also the victims have been empowered by at least telling their story and making it possible for further victims to acknowledge things which have happened to them.

    Even if it is either a mistrial or he's found innocent, there has been a certain amount of justice done in the tremendous financial loss to him as well as his reputation. He has also his age and bad health, so the word Karma seems to apply.

    When I read that letter/appeal for money with all those names at the bottom, I had to think that he could very well get off as those people are worried about little things they have done which they think could be misconstrued.

    I still hope that he is found guilty, but no matter, his punishment and karma will continue no matter what.

  5. What was her name?

  6. What was her name?

    I've already said that I'm not going to publish it yet. We have a person who talked extensively with her, and we may or may not publish more info about her later.

  7. Unbelievable. I can't believe that there could be jurors that think him innocent. Really people, come on! Amazing, I am speechless.

  8. I have a hard time understanding how anyone on the jury would not find him guilty--especially after his own testimony. However, even if he is found not guilty or there is a hung jury, he still will have to contend with the upcoming civil lawsuits.

    Hopefully this will put a message out there for all medical/psych professionals that they will be held more accountable for this type of inappropriate behavior and it will not be tolerated.

    Hopefully people will learn that doctors are NOT gods but are mere humans. They can come with their own set issues whether big or small.

    People should keep their eyes open for themselves as well as their children, and make sure that their children feel comfortable and safe to share things with them when things don't feel right.

  9. He can't be found innocent, only Not Guilty. NG verdict doesn't make him innocent- it simply means the States case didn't convince some juror(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

    They haven't reached a verdict or announced they are hung yet. Hope lives.

  10. Oh my.

    I am stunned.

    May I go out on a limb (without being slammed as being "racist") and voice my concerns about cultural differences being part of the problem?

    For some people, sexual abuse requires penetration?

    Education is the key, and it seems the not guilty crowd might not be terribly knowledgeable about child development, pedophiles and child molestation, despite the prosecution's best efforts to gently educate them.

    Why is it that Ayres has been able to avoid any "psychiatric examination" in this case? Steven's parents said that he had to hop through a ring of psychiatric exams in the civil case? (Sorry, letting my ignorance of the law show.)

    At worst, a hung jury and a mistrial. No way that anyone caves just to "finish" things.

    Stay strong, DS, and the men who testified in the trial. Like anon at 11:33 said, karma is still floating around.

  11. Remember: It is not the job of the jurry to decide if he is innocent. The District Attorney has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, this man is guilty of the allegations. If a reasonable doubt exists, they CANNOT convict. Its just the system.

  12. I totally agree w/Anonymous' eloquent 11:33 am post.

    No matter what the outcome, this man is living in hell. Whatever "freedom" he has had/will continue to have, whatever "luxuries" he has enjoyed, the truth is that he has been in hell for his entire life.

    That may not be much consolation for those whose lives he has so negatively impacted, but it's true...and ultimately, despite what transpires in the world of fallible human beings, truth does matter.

  13. Dear CaliGirl9:

    Race has nothing to do with the jury instructions in this case clearly defining Penal Code Section 288--which does not require penetration--or with the individual jurors' ability to comprehend and follow the jury instructions. (Unless you believe that certain races are less able than yours in reading and listening.)

    Nor are contentious differences among jurors on guilt or innocence a "problem". That is how the process works.

  14. To the Anonymous person who posted an answer to the question: "How can you at this point be excused for an answer to a question on the Voir Dire, I mean that was weeks ago."

    I have not released your post from moderation. It was a very lucid and well written legal explanation. I'm not in a generous mood today, and not feeling very benefit-of-the-doubty. TO ME, when I read your statement, it seems loaded and accusatory of the juror, without leaving open "honest human mistake." Since I don't have much information yet about what the juror has said to us, I don't know that your example is fitting, and I don't know if the tone on your final sentence is warranted.

    If you want to tone down your post, (or use your real name -grin-) I'll post it, if not, I'm going to hold it until I see what info we have.

  15. Ayres has been dragged to the door step of hell, he just has not been tossed in yet! I will keep praying.

    I feel that the younger jurors may not understand that YOUR child does not deserve to be sexually exploited by a doctor.

    They have missed the point of exam vs. molestation.

    I had a feeling that maybe this would have a huge bearing on the case. A bad doctor, sloppy, bad notes, etc.

    Not that I agree in anyway at all.

    I feel we still have a chance of conviction.

    I hope that if the case does end up with a mistrial or hung jury, that it will be re-tried.

    I doubt that Ayres will raise enough money through his defense fund to retain Doron Weinberg for another 2M trial.

    I hope Jim P. Fox sees the need to re-try this case if a mistrial or hung jury occurs.

  16. << Education is the key, and it seems the not guilty crowd might not be terribly knowledgeable about child development, pedophiles and child molestation, despite the prosecution's best efforts to gently educate them. >>

    With all due respect, the prosecution's "best efforts to gently educate them" were, obviously, inadequate (to put it tactfully.) As a former teacher, I knew that when a majority of my students failed a test, it was because I hadn't done my job: i.e., I hadn't been successful at teaching the material to those particular students. And one size does not fit all.

  17. Dear Deep Sounding:

    As I explicitly stated in the post, the supposition that the excused juror gave false information on her jury questioner or during vior dire is speculation. That is hardly accusatory; just the opposite.

    However, if (as your source reported) the juror was in fact excused for something on her juror questioner, and since jury selection is long over, it could only relate to an alleged misleading omission or alleged misstatement in the questioneer responses.

    My example from a murder case 25 years ago was merely to illustrate that if a juror who fails to disclose important information in the juror questioner and/or during vior dire is not excused during deliberations, then the trial court (or in my example the court of appeal) would be required to grant a new trial after any conviction.

    In other words, it is far better to deal with the issue by excusing the juror DURING deleberations than by granting a new trial later.

    The last sentence of the post was not meant to imply that the excused juror intentionally lied, only to underscore that jurors give responses under oath, and "forgetting" to mention key information that was clearly asked for (if that occurred here) is very serious and has resulted in the criminal prosecution of jurors--depending of course on how important the infomation was and how clear it is that the omission of mistatement was intentional.

    Anyhow, that is how the issue can arise weeks (or even months) after jury selection is concluded—even after a guilty verdict is entered on the minutes, and even on appeal if the issue is preserved in a timely moton for new trial.

  18. I'm thinking cultural differences ... race perhaps wasn't the correct term.

    A.M. coffee wasn't kicked it ...

    I just recall during my ONE stint at jury duty back in my teens, it was a generational divide in understanding what we were supposed to be doing. Two women who were in their mid-50s who had never worked outside the home (back in the mid-1970s) did not understand what the crime was or the consequences of a guilty/not guilty decision. I lived in a small community and the jury was white and Latino, 50/50.

    As usual, The Patient Advocate is a voice of reason and solid observation.

  19. To Anonymous at 2:27 PM:

    Thanks for coming back and re-stating. We appreciate the legal input, and it is not lost on us that it's better to deal with it now, than it would have been if it had happened after a verdict.

  20. Just to set the record straight. Juror #1 did not answer any question improperly. What happened could be called a miracle, or act of God and in this trial of all trials. She recalled a memory that was blocked or gone from her mind for a long time. She never told anyone about that experience and it came to her in and during the trial.

    Clear as Day she was shocked.

    Weinberg argued for a mistrial because this experience and report to the other jurors just happened to be identical to one of the victims in this case. A person can remember something that they have not thought of for many, many, many years. Even a juror

    Juror #1 You did a Great Job

    Michael G. Stogner

  21. "Can she cause a mistrial by talking about what is going on?"

    No she is free as a bird, she can talk to anybody (except the jurors and alternates) about anything she wants to, she has done her job well.

    Michael G. Stogner