Judge allows his mother to sit on jury

[MichaelJCheaney]

A 21-year-old Ashland County man convicted of car theft will get a new trial because the judge's mother served on the jury that found him guilty.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Thursday reversed both an appellate court decision and the trial judge ruling that there was no legal basis for removing the judge's mother from the jury. .
Mark H. Tody Jr. was found guilty at trial in June 2006 of stealing a car four months earlier. Ashland County Circuit Judge Robert E. Eaton sentenced Tody to three years probation.
Tody's attorney had objected during jury selection to the presence of Eaton's mother. Eaton refused to strike his mother from the panel, saying he had no legal basis for removing her from the panel.

JSonline

Thats pretty bad when your MOTHER is on the jury and you are still convicted.

[runecire]

But I'm confused...the article started by saying "the judge's mother" then it went to "Eaton's mother"....HELP

EDIT: but then you said it was the convicted's mother...

[theskyisfalling]

I guess he won't be calling mammy from jail.

[Kalehue]

JSonline

Thats pretty bad when your MOTHER is on the jury and you are still convicted.

It was pretty stupid to allow her to sit on the jury in the first place. Any outcome -- either way -- was bound to be questionable because of the possibility of bias she might have going into it. As soon as I saw the title of this thread I thought, "I smell a new trial coming..."

Now the taxpayers have to pay for a stupid ruling by Judge Eaton.

[Kalehue]

But I'm confused...the article started by saying "the judge's mother" then it went to "Eaton's mother"....HELP

EDIT: but then you said it was the convicted's mother...

Ummm...I didn't catch this. I thought it was the defendant's mother.

Either way -- I'm wondering why they didn't just strike her. I'm guessing they probably would have still gotten a conviction, only now the taxpayers have to pay for two trials.

[El Supremo]

It was the judge's mother who was on the jury, not the defendant's. If that had been the case, there is no way on this earth she would have been selected.

The judge's mother, on the other hand... I personally see no reason why that would present a conflict of interest. The judge sets the boundaries of the proceedings, but it's the jury who must decide on the verdict (and possibly the sentencing).

As long as she was deemed impartial, I have no problem with this.

[ineedanap]

Mark H. Tody Jr. was found guilty at trial in June 2006 of stealing a car four months earlier. Ashland County Circuit Judge Robert E. Eaton sentenced Tody to three years probation.
Tody's attorney had objected during jury selection to the presence of Eaton's mother. Eaton refused to strike his mother from the panel, saying he had no legal basis for removing her from the panel.

It was the judge's mother. And no legal basis? How about conflict of interest? Maybe he should have recused himself from the case? What a moron. If I were a taxpayer in that County, I'd be furious. What a waste of money.

[El Supremo]

Mark H. Tody Jr. was found guilty at trial in June 2006 of stealing a car four months earlier. Ashland County Circuit Judge Robert E. Eaton sentenced Tody to three years probation.
Tody's attorney had objected during jury selection to the presence of Eaton's mother. Eaton refused to strike his mother from the panel, saying he had no legal basis for removing her from the panel.

It was the judge's mother. And no legal basis? How about conflict of interest? Maybe he should have recused himself from the case? What a moron. If I were a taxpayer in that County, I'd be furious. What a waste of money.

Not trying to start shit here, Ineedanap, but how do you see this as a conflict of interest? Like, specifically. I'm curious as to your perception. My knee-jerk reaction was that it was wrong as well, but when I stopped and really thought about it, I saw nothing wrong with the situation.

[MichaelJCheaney]

Mark H. Tody Jr. was found guilty at trial in June 2006 of stealing a car four months earlier. Ashland County Circuit Judge Robert E. Eaton sentenced Tody to three years probation.
Tody's attorney had objected during jury selection to the presence of Eaton's mother. Eaton refused to strike his mother from the panel, saying he had no legal basis for removing her from the panel.

It was the judge's mother. And no legal basis? How about conflict of interest? Maybe he should have recused himself from the case? What a moron. If I were a taxpayer in that County, I'd be furious. What a waste of money.

Thanks for that INN....I missed it too....whoops.

But at any rate, regardless of whose mother it is, it does raise an interesting question of "undue influence" I mean it being the Judges mother, that would give the Defense an automatic grounds for appeal, -which it did-

And why didn't the Defense use one of its "cause strikes" to have the woman removed from the Jury? (If I remember my time on a Jury Lawyers are allowed to remove anybody from the Jury for any reason)

And if for whatever reason the Defense attorney missed the fact that the Judge and a potential Juror had the same last name and didn't bother to inquire about it, until after Jury selection...(I am presuming here...) I am not so sure he is a very good defense lawyer.

[MichaelJCheaney]

Not trying to start shit here, Ineedanap, but how do you see this as a conflict of interest? Like, specifically. I'm curious as to your perception. My knee-jerk reaction was that it was wrong as well, but when I stopped and really thought about it, I saw nothing wrong with the situation.

Appearance is everything in this day and age.

Especially when it come to lawyers.

Just even having the appearance of a conflict should have been enough to get her booted IMO.....

Whats not to say that the Judge and Mom have/had a close relationship in which they talked on the phone often and the topic of this particular case arose in one of the conversations....even something as innocent as "Gee Mom how odd is it that you would happen to be sitting on a jury for a case I am hearing?" would you as a defendant believe that you are really getting a fair trial?

I wouldn't.

And isn't an impartial jury one of the basic tenants of Law?



Thats not to say that during the new trial he will not end up being convicted of the same crime, because if he was convicted once odds are he will be convicted again.

[Kalehue]

Thats not to say that during the new trial he will not end up being convicted of the same crime, because if he was convicted once odds are he will be convicted again.

Only the taxpayers would have been much better served if they were only having to pay for one trial.

[ineedanap]

I just typed a response and it's gone! I'll try again.

The conflict can go both ways. It could be that the mother will be seen as more likely to convict if her son is the judge (especially if it's an elected position) or more likely NOT to convict, so it doesn't appear to be a conflict.

Generally I believe judges are smart people. (I know we've had a few exceptions on here.) Therefore, I believe this judge should have known that it could potentially be mispercieved as a conflict, and taken steps to make sure that didn't happen. Apparently the WSC thought better of the jury selection, also.

No shit started, ES. Now, if you start swinging swine, we're gonna throw down! haha

~Needa

[MichaelJCheaney]

Only the taxpayers would have been much better served if they were only having to pay for one trial.

I live in Wisconsin.

The Government doesn't serve us.....

Taxpayers are EXPECTED to serve the Government...

It says so in the resident hand book....

[El Supremo]

The conflict can go both ways. It could be that the mother will be seen as more likely to convict if her son is the judge (especially if it's an elected position) or more likely NOT to convict, so it doesn't appear to be a conflict.

I agree with both you and MJC on the "appearance" factor. A huge portion of the legal process rests with perception, especially as it pertains to jurors.

However, I don't buy the part about Mom being more/less likely to convict if her son was the judge. Judges preside over trials, they do not get the credit for convictions or acquittals, the lawyers do. They are basically there to make sure due process of law and the rules of a fair trial are followed.

Having said all that... maybe it would have just been best if the judge had recused himself or refused to allow Mom to sit on the jury. Even though I personally don't believe it posed a danger to the impartiality of the proceedings, I do agree that it could easily present the appearance of bias to other people involved.

[MichaelJCheaney]

However, I don't buy the part about Mom being more/less likely to convict if her son was the judge.

Personally I don't buy that part either but it does all come down to appearance...and sometimes all it take is the appearance of an impropriety to create reasonable doubt in the minds of an appeals court.

I do think that the SCOWI did get this one right though. (And believe me I am NO fan of the SCOWI they have truly made some boneheaded decisions in the past)