Lawyers: Smoking Ban Influenced Jury

[Rhino]

Lawyers for Death Row Inmate Claim Ban on Juror Smoking Influenced Conviction

Monday, August 07, 2006

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Lawyers for a death row inmate are appealing his conviction, in part, because the judge barred jurors from smoking during deliberations.

According to the appeal on behalf of Phillip Elmore, attorneys said the lack of smoke breaks made jurors antsy and overly eager to finish the case.

A jury deliberated for six hours before convicting Elmore in 2003 of aggravated murder and other charges in the death of his ex-girlfriend. A week later, the jury needed three hours to recommend the death sentence........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207282,00.html

[Suzie]

Good Lord, if they have such an addiction that they can function and perform the duties required of them in a day they need to seek help. You could be an alcoholic and get called for jury duty, they aren't going to let you knock a few back in that case either.

[Rhino]

Drinking affects your lucidity, and by extension your competence. Not so with smoking. I saw programs in the military I considered dangerous after smoking bans were enacted. Let 'em smoke. What's the difference?

[Rhino]

This was one of our shelters during Katrina. The report was very amusing. I used to have the full version somewhere.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/110782.html

[ConspiracyBuff]

Why cant they smoke? Whats the big deal?

[Suzie]

Drinking affects your lucidity, and by extension your competence. Not so with smoking. I saw programs in the military I considered dangerous after smoking bans were enacted. Let 'em smoke. What's the difference?

If you are a drunk in some cases you have been so used to the booze you are worse without it than you are with it till you detox. Addiction is addiction.

[Rhino]

Yes, but if you drink, you can't function properly, as I said.

[Rhino]

Why cant they smoke? Whats the big deal?
Beats me. Sounds like social engineering. A jury is no place for that.

[Suzie]

But you can still be called for jury duty no matter what you are addicted to and you have to do what you need to do without expecting an alowance for whatever crutch you usually drag around with you. That's true for anyone, and it's posted on the front door and thru out the building by law if it is a non smoking facility. They ask you when you fill out your form if you have any issues that would keep you from performing your duty as a juror, if smoking is one of them and you don't declare it they could charge you with false swearing or whatever it is they get you for when you sign a false declaration.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Good Lord, if they have such an addiction that they can function and perform the duties required of them in a day they need to seek help. You could be an alcoholic and get called for jury duty, they aren't going to let you knock a few back in that case either.

Are you a smoker? I think it probably could have had an effect on the length of deliberation.

I'm glad I quit 4 years ago.

[Kathy29]

It's social engineering. It's a judge looking to impose his personal belief system on someone else.

The judge is more interested in engineering the jury than in getting a fair verdict.

I'm glad I refuse to serve on a jury. After four years of yearly showing up for jury duty, this was the first year I haven't been called. Maybe they got tired of me.

[Eagle1]

open a damn window. this anti-smoking stuff is crazy. if there were smokers on a jury then the deliberations could very well have been effected by the ban.

[Rhino]

Yep. Might as well withold food. That would speed up verdicts though. LOL!

[Suzie]

Only if they become non eating buildings and you know that when you agree and sign papers that you can perform your duties as juror even if you won't be allowed to eat.

[Rhino]

No matter. It affects your ability to perform the job.

[Suzie]

Well it's not like they are there 24/7 most courts houses end the day at 5 o'clock. I figure many could make it from 9 to 5 without eating till they leave and barring any metobolic disorder (which you could declare on your juror form and they will tell you if they can acomidate) I think most people could do that for a few days of their life. But that's not really an addiction, everyone has to eat, and if it's something EVERYONE needs and not just a few that want special rules just for them, they would probably not deny that.

[Rhino]

It affects their ability to do the job correctly. Like it or not, that's true. Regardless of one's opinion on smoking, why would anyone want a juror's ability to do the job impaired? That makes no sense.

[Suzie]

Maybe it would effect the consentration of those who don't smoke and they wouldn't be able to reach a verdict with burning eyes and a cloud of smoke. There are buildings that don't allow smoking ... there are buildings that don't allow pets ... there are buildings where you have to wear shoes and shirts, you have to follow the rules while you are there. If you can't do that you need to tell them before they invest the time in an expensive trial and you can't do your job because of something that isn't anyone else's issue other than yours. There was a woman excused when I was on a jury because she was breast feeding and they were not willing to allow here to use the pump in the jury room or have her leaving the room because it had became uncomfortable. There are just some things you can't do some places.

[Riverboat]

open a damn window.That might be a good idea, but a lot of buildings are constructed so that windows CAN'T open.

In any case, that knife cuts both ways. S'pose his lawyer has a point and the jurors (one or two or whatever) lit up, assuming the windows are sealed shut. A lawyer could then argue the non-smoking jurors rushed to a verdict just to escape.

Perhaps our alleged murderer is a smoker, and not being allowed to smoke, he got kinda fidgety, drawing the notice of the jurors. Or he's s'posed to be judged by a jury of his peers, and ain't none of them smokers. Hmph! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

[Suzie]

That might be a good idea, but a lot of buildings are constructed so that windows CAN'T open.

In any case, that knife cuts both ways. S'pose his lawyer has a point and the jurors (one or two or whatever) lit up, assuming the windows are sealed shut. A lawyer could then argue the non-smoking jurors rushed to a verdict just to escape.

Perhaps our alleged murderer is a smoker, and not being allowed to smoke, he got kinda fidgety, drawing the notice of the jurors. Or he's s'posed to be judged by a jury of his peers, and ain't none of them smokers. Hmph! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

:lol: Very good points!

[Rhino]

Maybe it would effect the consentration of those who don't smoke and they wouldn't be able to reach a verdict with burning eyes and a cloud of smoke.........
Ah! Now I see the disconnect. We aren't talking about smoking in the jury room. The judge wouldn't allow them to have smoke breaks at all, even outside the jury room. Nobody was advocating letting them smoke in the room. They just wanted a smoke break.

[Suzie]

That's okay with me, but I don't have a job to get back to, some might prefer to get it over with and not take breaks everytime someone gets a nicotine twitch. That's why the breastfeeder was excused.

[Rhino]

Yeah, but the accused might prefer a competent jury.

[ConspiracyBuff]

There should be no problem with allowing a juror to smoke a cig on a cig break, this is ridiculous.

[Suzie]

Yeah, but the accused might prefer a competent jury.

Or a "speedy trial" and a judge with a full docket might like the idea of insuring that so the taxpayers don't pay more than they have to for a trial that could have a days deliberation if they can keep everyone in the room for a few hours straight without waiting for people to return ... or stopping when they are onto something and lose focus.

[Rhino]

You don't sacrifice competency or impartiality for expediency or money, regardless of the cause. The right to a speedy trial means getting to trial quickly. It doesn't mean we rush through it once we get there. I hope I nor anyone I know ever has to go to court in a jurisdiction where they think money and speed are more important than a fair trial.

[DesertFox]

If you hadn't guessed, Suzie's very close to an anti-smoking nazi, guys. :D

I smoked for 42 years and never was addicted, but I put down 2 and 3 packs a day because I liked to smoke. Finally it got to where I couldn't breathe and smoke, so rather than give up breathing, I gave up smoking.

[Suzie]

That doesn't mean you alow things that will increase the cost just because of a few jurors taking away from the deliberation to do things others serving the same trial do not have nor want to do.

[Suzie]

If you hadn't guessed, Suzie's very close to an anti-smoking nazi, guys. :D


You know that's not true, I don't support the laws. Self control is what I support. You can do what ever you want. It's the "pro smoking nazi's" that are creating the laws because they have no self control. If they can't make it thru one trial and smoke before they get there and after they leave they have a self control problem.

[Rhino]

I support non-smoking too, but I don't support compromising a jury in the name of it. For many smokers, it isn't a matter of self control. They do indeed suffer when they have to go without. Even if that condition is indeed self-imposed, we can't simply ignore the fact that it exists. If smokers can't function without a cigarette, they should be excused, or they should be given a smoke break. The main point is a competent jury, not whether or not someone smokes.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Well, I certainly won't speak for ALL juries, but I have been ON one before. Even though the trial was only two days, during deliberations we were given mandatory breaks . . . some chose to go to a spot allocated for smoking, others got water or soda, but we were still isolated from the rest of court (and public outside areas).

I think breaks are healthy -- I found being on a jury quite exhausting mentally, and the breaks (we got 2) were definitely needed. I see nothing wrong with allowing breaks, and those that smoke being allowed to.

[Kathy29]

Well if the speedy part is the goal per Suzie, then justice was indeed served. "Find him guilty so we can all get out of here."

[Suzie]

I support non-smoking too, but I don't support compromising a jury in the name of it. For many smokers, it isn't a matter of self control. They do indeed suffer when they have to go without. Even if that condition is indeed self-imposed, we can't simply ignore the fact that it exists. If smokers can't function without a cigarette, they should be excused, or they should be given a smoke break. The main point is a competent jury, not whether or not someone smokes.

Okay I will tell you how it can be bad. I served on a murder trial that was thrown out. Why?? Because the the accused's ex girlfriend took the stand and when they asked her when she met him her answer was "right after he got out of jail the first time for murder." and then it was over. She knew he would stay in jail till he got a new trial then and that case really cast a lot of doubt on her and the other people present at the time of the murder, so she had a reason to want this case thrown out. If I know people are going to be standing outside smoking and I want to get a case thrown out I am going to show up at the smoking area with signs.

We weren't allowed to leave the building for that reason and she still pulled it off.

[Rhino]

So, we should ban sodas because someone may show up at the Coke machine, or at the candy machine, or in the restroom? That's it. Let's ban peeing. That would sure as heck get a quick verdict. The situation you cite had nothing to do with smoking. Jurors get breaks, whether they smoke or not. They can be exposed to outside influence, whether they smoke or not. Control of access is possible, whether they smoke or not. I think Fox may be right. The smoking thing may be clouding your judgement [/pun].

[Suzie]

We had all of that behind a section not available to the public. Once you leave that area (and all federal buildings are non smoking) which you would have to do to smoke you can come in contact with anyone. And then those who had no part in what gets it thrown out are put back in the pool and duty extended till you see a trial to completion. Self control is needed to do many things in life.

[Rhino]

If your court couldn't provide an acceptable area, as I presume may have been the case for the one above, then they should have excused smokers. Self control wouldn't have been a player. You might as well try to overcome a heart attack with self control. I'm going to asume you've never smoked, since you seem to think it is simply a matter of ignoring it. That's not even remotely close to true for many smokers. Some can, but many simply cannot, and it's far from a matter of self control.

[Suzie]

If your court couldn't provide an acceptable area, as I presume may have been the case for the one above, then they should have excused smokers. Self control wouldn't have been a player.

I agree, and it's the same issue they had in excusing the breast feeding woman.

You might as well try to overcome a heart attack with self control. I'm going to asume you've never smoked, since you seem to think it is simply a matter of ignoring it. That's not even remotely close to true for many smokers.

I wouldn't have a problem with them providing a "smoking room" for people. But that simply isn't going to happen. The "smoking nazis" want to do when and where ever they want so it was banned completely. Which is why I say they are the ones responsible for the bans.

Some can, but many simply cannot, and it's far from a matter of self control.
Then they should say if they can or can't on their questionare.

[Rhino]

The "smoking nazis" want to do when and where ever they want so it was banned completely. Which is why I say they are the ones responsible for the bans.
I have to presume there's a bias due to personal experience here, because I've never seen or heard of anything even remotely approaching that. I can't see it being a problem in any courthouse I've ever seen. Even the employess there smoke.

[Suzie]

Probably, I worked in our state house when smoking was still allowed. Some got really nasty about it. And I see post on many message boards by people with the same view that their right to smoke trumps all others.

[Rhino]

LOL! There are idiots in every crowd.

[Peachdiane]

I agree, and it's the same issue they had in excusing the breast feeding woman.

:lol:

I can tell the one judge here gets impatient... no one in the courtroom could sit still. It was either the lawyers or the people seated taking a 5 minute smoking break. One time the judge asked a defendant where his lawyer was and his reply was, 'He said to tell you he was somewhere in the courthouse." Translation: on a smoking break. She slammed the files away and said to come back when he found him. :D

[Wolfcounsel]

Nobody has the right to smoke, and nobody has the right to stick his nose where people are smoking. Now figure it out who is eventually going to win this one in the future.:evilgrin:

I bet 50 to one the smokers win.

[Suzie]

I figure they just didn't want everyone else to have to wait around on her just because she needed to do something they did not. Which would also be the reason for excusing smokers as Rhino pointed out. If they allowed it in the building and set up an area for them to smoke within the area the public cant access the problem would be solved. But the bans are in place here because people wouldn't keep it in one area. They tried that here for a while but because people would do it anywhere they just did away with it all together, which is why I say the lack of self control leads to the bans.

[Rhino]

I see plenty of places with restricted outside smoking areas. They work just fine, and it doesn't spread. I don't advocate indoor smoking.

[UnkHiram]

Well, I am a chain smoker. Do about three packs a day. I have sat on a jury in a nonsmoking courthouse (Are their any other kind now days?). I doubt it made me inclined to shorten the deliberations since I was one of the people arguing for a more severe penalty be put on the jerk.

You might suggest it made me less inclined to be forgiving and mercifull, however if you know me very well you already know that I have dang little forgiveness or mercy in my personality.

[Suzie]

I see plenty of places with restricted outside smoking areas. They work just fine, and it doesn't spread. I don't advocate indoor smoking.

Agreed, but if you are trying to keep a jury confined from any public access they would either have to be in a room ... or not do it at all. Which is probably why they go with not at all.

[DesertFox]

It's the "pro smoking nazi's" that are creating the laws because they have no self control. If they can't make it thru one trial and smoke before they get there and after they leave they have a self control problem.I see. You're the judge of when they should and shouldn't smoke. You're the judge of what's proper and improper for them to do. You're going to impose your notion of "self control" on others.

Sorry, Sooz, but you do come across as very close to an anti-smoking nazi. All it took in this case was some reasonable compromise and the anti-smoking nazis refused. Just as you are refusing.

[Suzie]

I see. You're the judge of when they should and shouldn't smoke. You're the judge of what's proper and improper for them to do. You're going to impose your notion of "self control" on others.

No the Judge is the "judge" and he says they can't do it. They have to either deal with it or not serve.

Sorry, Sooz, but you do come across as very close to an anti-smoking nazi. All it took in this case was some reasonable compromise and the anti-smoking nazis refused. Just as you are refusing.

I said give them a room. But this has already taken place, in this particular case you can't go back and let them do it NOW, but their addiction is hampering the right to a fair trial because they can't follow the direction of the court in charge of THIS CASE.

[DesertFox]

So you got no problem if the judge says they can smoke in the trial room, in the jury room and anywhere else? Somehow I don't think you're going to agree with that, though you have no problem with him DISallowing it.

[Suzie]

Not a factor in this no matter what I think all Federal Buildings are non smoking, that law is already in place. Just as all "smoking bans" have nothing to do with what I think. I don't make laws, but I do have to follow them, that's true for anyone. I just happen to think that if people didn't insist on smoking around non smokers they wouldn't have the laws, why would they need them? But NOW even if you are in a room all by yourself you can't smoke, and yes I think that is silly. But now there are laws and once again it doesn't matter what I think ... you are stuck with them. And smokers are going to have to learn to function with the way things are no matter what ANYONE wants them to be.

[DesertFox]

...she noted with barely-disguised glee :smirk:

[Suzie]

Oh no I am quite certain it doesn't matter what I think. Smokers have been telling us non smokers that for YEARS, we have no right to a view on this. So I have accepted that. :lol: Funny I don't hear it so much anymore though and I haven't done a thing.

[DesertFox]

Actually, I heard from nonsmokers -- dirty looks, whining, only very occasionally politely asking if I would move over there -- for over 30 years while I smoked. 30 of the 42. That's over twice as long as smokers "heard" from me (in the form of my cigarette smoke).

[Suzie]

In public I have found that to be true, as you say for the most part. A friend of mine had loads of trouble years ago. She had a son with severe asthma, some were nice about it some were assholes. Now when I worked with people who smoked ... different story the assholes out weighed the nice. Funny how some people are nicer to strangers than people they know.

[Rhino]

Funny how some people are nicer to strangers than people they know.You know my wife!!!!

I've seen places with outdoor smoking areas that are inaccessible from other areas. That should be possible for a sequestered jury, but most juries aren't sequestered anyway. The public has free access to them when they aren't deliberating.