Crazy story from the OC Weekly about a sex crimes case in California.  After an Orange County prosecutor gave an opening statement, Juror 112 notified [Judge David] Hoffer that based on her own experiences she believes criminals should forgo trials in such sexual assault cases and go straight to prison to spare victims additional turmoil.  The prosecutor then asked the juror: “You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?”  Juror 112 responded, “I would have to vote guilty.”  Statements by lawyers are not evidence, and Hoffer followed up with the juror, according to court transcripts reviewed by the Weekly.  The judge asked if she could return a verdict of not guilty if the government couldn’t prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.  “I don’t think I would be able to,” the juror replied.  The prosecutor tried again: “Let me ask you this flat-out. Let’s say the victim takes the stand [and] you flat-out don’t believe her. In fact, you think she’s lying. You look at her [and conclude] ‘I don’t believe a word coming out of her mouth.’ Are you going to convict this man anyway?”  Juror 112 responded before the first witness in the case had been called, “That depends. I still feel he was at fault.”  Hoffer, appointed to the bench in 2003 by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and the local government’s lawyer continued to ask questions and finally got her to say she “would try” to be a fair juror.  Over defense objections, the judge put her on the panel.  Emphasis mine. It’s bad enough that she got on the jury. Worse still, Jose Felipe Velasco was just denied another trial.  Hat tip: A Public Defender.
Man denied new trial despite having been found guilty by a juror who doesn't believe in trials at all.