Convicted Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer kidnap plotters send private investigator to juror's workpl

[SouthernDem4ever]

Source: usatoday.com

DETROIT -- Two of the men convicted of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer hired a private investigator to go to a juror's workplace and investigate the juror's potential bias, according to a newly unsealed court filing.

The men -- Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., who were found guilty last month of planning to kidnap the governor over her COVID-19 policies -- hired the investigator to track down the juror's coworkers to determine if the juror was biased against them. The investigation was part of a broader effort by their defense attorneys to get a new trial.

The defense long maintained this was a case of entrapment and vowed a vigorous appeal, which right now appears to focus on a potentially problematic juror who surfaced on the second day of the trial. The juror was allowed to stay on the case after the judge interviewed the person and concluded there was no proof of bias.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/09/09/whitmer-kidnap-plot-private-investigator-juror/8036074001/

---

So, we can't have a juror who is biased against a couple of weirdos plotting to kidnap a sitting Governor?

Can we find jurors that think this is ok? And now it's ok to intimidate jurors personal lives for doing their duty?

[gab13by13]

1. DOJ allows it.

[ck4829]

3. Yep, just like jury nullification for abortion and drug-related trials

[Novara]

2. Would that even be admissible in a request for a new trial?

Some yahoo says what now? I mean, anybody could make anything up and say someone was biased. It isn't a private citizen's job to determine bias. This is done during jury selection. They seated this juror, so I'm thinking that the juror said they could be impartial and the lawyers and court agreed. Jurors are instructed to decide based on the law and the case presented, not their opinions.

So unless they told their co-workers that they'd convict these assholes no matter what if they were seated, I doubt this is even admissible.

[Karma13612]

4. I'm more concerned

Last edited Sat Sep 10, 2022, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

About intimidation and harassment.

This is going to become more routine if there aren’t consequences right now.

Ohhhh, WHO am I kidding? This is going to be a thing now. Along with threats to law enforcement doing their lawful jobs properly (no knees on necks, or treating a person like a punching bag), now we see more illegal stuff on jurors just doing what is asked of them. And their friends/family caught in the crossfire.

[rubbersole]

6. Norms and standard decency are gone.

tfg is the poster boy for the low class approach to how we treat each other in this country. Social media has always had this raw underbelly but orange man made it acceptable in public.

[2naSalit]

13. This is true.

An interesting thought came to me a few minutes ago...

It seems these lowlife actors are representative of the portion of our population that does not agree to the social contract of "Rule of Law" and have no compunction to obey any of them yet insist others do so.

Anemic civics education and factional influence being fed by emotive appeal is going to maintain the tension until enough voters understand their responsibilities as citizens and take action to preserve the democratic system of self government.

Much of this will require exercising respect for each other, not sure how to bring that part about.

[rubbersole]

14. I think (hope) the midterms will be a start.

The expected blue tsunami hopefully will be a refreshing turnaround to a higher level of respect for one another. But only if the MSM covers it as such. (Don't hold your breath.)

[yankee87]

21. The ends justify the means

I love how you say these people have no respect for the rule of law. These people believe they are doing the work of God. So, to them, everything is justified.
You will never change their minds,

[2naSalit]

22. Also true.

Grew up with zealots in the family, I know it when I see it.

[SouthernDem4ever]

25. Anyone who votes for the current fascist repuglicans needs to know

Last edited Sun Sep 11, 2022, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

they will only end up hurting themselves. They go to sleep at night knowing they will probably wake up in the same place and status only because of our democracy and the rule of law. The fascists they now support are for abolishing that system. When that happens, infrastructure including food safety and distribution, property rights, social programs including medicare and social security, snow plowing, roads and bridge repair, and respect for individual rights, just to name a few will all be gone. I frame it in that light to anyone who dares tell me they support today's repuglican party.

[Karma13612]

16. Very very true..nt

[Orrex]

5. That's got to be one of the worst-written headlines I've ever seen

Do better, USA Today.

Also, is anyone surprised by this story?

[Karma13612]

17. I agree. When I first read it, I was thinking "What was she convicted

Of???”

Then I realized it was a really convoluted messy, misleading, sloppy, poor attempt at journalism.

[Karma13612]

19. I just went to their site and

Started scanning various news articles.

They seem to do this a lot. Their article titles are very poorly written. Confusing and full of grammar errors. Makes you click and read the articles.

[lostnfound]

7. Isn't this jury-tampering. Inherently threatening to be visiting their work place? Nt

[Escurumbele]

11. I should have read your entry first before I posted close to the same question. I would like an

answer as well, it doesn't seem legal, does it?

[wnylib]

15. It happened after the jury was finished and dismissed, so

not jury tampering, AFAIK.

I think that it is legitimate to question whether a juror was biased when planning for an appeal. It has been done in cases regarding racial bias.

Sounds like the defense is really scrambling and scraping to find a reason for an appeal. But, given the evidence, an appeal will end up with a conviction, too.

The attorneys are giving this their all, so it's safe to assume that they are not public defenders. Wonder who is paying for them.

[Karma13612]

18. But, this is going to a former juror's

Place of work, and talking to their co-workers. If I understand the story correctly.

I personally think this is wrong.

It’s lazy investigating and intimidation and disruption. If they want to investigate, go to the co-worker’s home. Don’t disrupt the workplace.

And in my opinion, it IS a form of juror intimidation. Potential future jurors will fear they are going to later be targeted. Even indirectly thru their friends and co-workers. And I imagine employers and friends aren’t happy with this.

It’s just more anti-democracy crap.

[paleotn]

8. A pity they haven't been sentenced yet. I hate these damn delays.

Toss their asses in jail. Entrapped my ass. The stock excuse of whiners who lack the character to own up to THEIR decisions to commit crimes.

[Escurumbele]

9. One would think that qualifies as "Jury Tampering"?, would it not? Or "Jury Intimidation"???

That cannot be legal, it should be added to their current charges.

[KPN]

10. Who is funding their legal representation and

this “investigation”? Do these whackos actually have resources?

[LiberalFighter]

12. The attorneys need to be intimidated.

[dchill]

20. Juror bias should be rooted out! During the actual jury selection...

...of the actual trial - which is actually over.

[MarcA]

23. Can't they tell these "investigators" to take a hike? n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

24. That title is journalism at its worst. Sounds like the Gov was convicted

[mahina]

26. Right?

Anyway.

[blue-wave]

27. Ummmmm,

Isn't this jury-tampering?

[mackdaddy]

28. I was on a criminal jury a couple of years ago. It is not just "do you have a bias".

What the instructions given us was what was the answer to this question.

Can you put aside any biases or preconceptions, and make a decision on guilt or innocence based ONLY on the evidence presented during the trial?

Everyone has some biases or opinions on most things in life. They could never seat a jury or they would all be ignoramuses if they tried to eliminate all biases. As a matter of fact, the defense and prosecutors really seem to want jurors to be slanted their way if at all possible.

But again the ultimate thing was: can you put your biases aside and make a decision base only on the evidence presented.

[SouthernDem4ever]

29. But again the ultimate thing was: can you put your biases aside and make a decision base only on the

which the judge obviously can't do.