Thursday, November 19, 2009

Jury on a Rope

I have been informed by a commenter on the previous post that the Kevin Driscoll trial has ended in a hung jury. I am not yet aware of any details.

I had a strong hunch it would end this way when I saw how long the jury was deliberating. Clearly, they couldn't make up their minds.

I am aware than in two states, Louisiana and Oregon, it is possible to obtain a conviction if at least 10 of the 12 jurors agree to a guilty verdict. So, this being Oregon, I must assume that if the jury in the Driscoll trial is "hung", it means that less than ten jurors thought Kevin was guilty.

Naturally, I am curious to know the exact numbers.

In a criminal case, such as the present one, it is possible for the judge to declare a mistrial when a jury hangs itself. That would mean that the prosecutor could start a whole new trial.

We'll see if Jody Vaughan and/or Mike Dugan wants to go that route.

UPDATE: Immediately after posting this, I checked my e-mail and found the following:
"So there will be no verdict today in the trial. Much to everyone's dismay it was a hung jury and surprise surprise Jody Vaughn has elected to start another trial against Kevin. I'm utterly in disbelief that there was not an Innocent verdict today. I really don't know what to say. I am confused how this could have happened and Kevin and his family are disappointed and share my disbelief. I wish I was writing you with better news today. I'm feeling my faith in our judicial system fading after getting the news of a hung jury today. I guess the silver lining is that Kevin did not get sent to prison an innocent man. I know Kevin will not give up until his innocence is proven."
I hope to hear from Angela also, in a little bit. Clearly, there is much to be talked about. But I'll leave it for later.


I must quibble with the final statement of my correspondent cited above. Kevin's innocence does not need to be "proven" - it needs to be disproven.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a suspicion...

On Phoenix New Times coverage of the Doug Grant murder trial, one of the jurors anonymously mentioned that 6 women jurors were dead set on a murder 1 conviction even though the facts didn't support it. They were ready to hang the jury for it.

Could this be the case? Could there be a number of women on the jury that would vote to convict a man of rape no matter what the facts are?

Why else would the jury deliberate for more than an hour on this?

- canaryguy

9:02 PM  
Blogger Snark said...

"Could there be a number of women on the jury that would vote to convict a man of rape no matter what the facts are?"

It's almost certainly the case that more women than men would convict a man of rape on the strength of the accusation ALONE.

And this, for the exact same reason that Kevin's false accuser felt entitled to make the accusation in the first place.

The rape hysteria, male-blaming and male-objectification of feminism.

One day they will be held to account.

2:20 AM  
Blogger Jared said...

All it takes is a true believer asking "Why would she lie?"

3:51 AM  
Blogger Heather said...

Ok, this is's time for us ALL to do more than just blog about the lunacy of this trial! I say we picket the DA's office with signs and the courthouse as well (when the new trial begins). Major media must get involved. Keep buggy them, and keep bugging them, until something is done. EVERYONE in Bend needs to know what is going on!! I can't do anything for personal reasons, but I would ask that if there are readers of this blog from Bend, please band together and do something. I cannot imagine what kevin must be going through right now. All this is so frustrating for me, I can't imagine what it's like for him and his family. Insane!!!!

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is one of the awful consequences of the 'only 2% of women lie' myth.

If these jurors are not aware that false rape accusation is very high - around 50% - then they are going to give serious weight to the fact an accusation was made.

I think judges should be obliged to inform juries that rape accusations have a notoriously high rate of falsehood, and that jurors must be especially considerate of evidence.

11:13 AM  
Blogger sccrow said...

Talking to most women, they do believe that it is their civic duty to find a man guilty whenever he is accused by a woman.


Women in this CUNTry have been brainwashed into thinking that they were somehow "persecuted" unjustly in days past...

It is their way of getting revenge against ALL MEN for things that never actually happened.

It's just sick.

11:16 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I can certainly respect your outrage, and I know that it comes from a genuine place, an honest place, within yourself. However. . .

. . . it is apparent to me that our pool of female supporters is potentially quite large.

For my own part, I have always been very careful to launch my missiles at feminism and feminists exclusively. It is very,very easy to segue into bashing women before you even realize it, but I have always kept clear of this. . .

2:47 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


"All it takes is a true believer asking "Why would she lie?""

Here's what I would do. I would look that person squarely in the eye, and say in the most dead-pan tone of voice you can imagine:

"I give up. Why WOULD she lie?"

3:05 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Your spirit is appreciated. . . and much needed!

Notice the e-mail link at the upper right of the page, where it says "Kevin Driscoll is Innocent".

Maybe you cannot do anything directly, but you never know how you might be able to help out. For example, you might have useful knowledge. . . ;)

3:18 PM  
Blogger sccrow said...



You're right.

I need to mind that in the future - and use the word "feminist" more often than "woman".

However - wouldn't you agree that "most" women in this country have been "touched" or even "poisoned" by feminism?

Just a question... Not a criticism.

I personally have not met any women who were not tainted by feminist ideologies.

But - maybe I am just in the wrong circles of people.

4:21 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I would concur that a majority of women have as you say been 'tainted' by feminist ideologies, but that in a great many cases the dosage of poison has been slight and the damage has been superficial.

And that if the poison spigot gets shut off, the system will gradually purify and heal itself.

I believe that the WORST thing feminism has done to women generally, is to "politicize" them by making them conscious of themselves as a group, and selling them on the idea that it is natural or right they should have a "lobby" of some sort looking out for their interests specifically.

To a shallow thinker, that might seem like a cool idea. But if you think deeply it doesn't smell quite so great any more - and the deeper you think, the worse the aroma gets!

Other than that, I would have to say that X number of women are just inherently lousy people - as are X number of men. And 'politicizing' women has simply multiplied the 'torque' of the mischief some women might commit - like putting a cheater pipe around a wrench.

Consider the pop song "I am woman, hear me roar."

Observe that it does not say: "I am *A* woman."

No. It says "I am woman".

And that is a huge difference. . .

6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

despite the theories on how many women were on the jury, The majority was made up of men, there were no more than three tops. Men who know not to beat or bite their women and know no means no.

11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you mean men like Kevin Driscoll?

7:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home