Arkansas Blog

The media is going to beat on this for ever, and only because it was one of theirs. If it had been any other person, it might have warranted a mention for a day or two.

That's a fair observation, anoncow. I couldn't argue with the notion that more capital cases cry out for deeper analysis of outcome. But, strictly speaking, I'd argue against the notion \ that attention here is solely because Pressly worked in media as those reporting on the story do. TV news people are celebrities in the local context. Right or wrong, better or worse, there's a higher interest among the public at large about celebrities than about the other lives, equally valuable in human terms, lost to violent crime. Also, the randomness of the attack, the severity of the crime, the circumstantial nature of critical evidence and other factors set this case apart, it seems to me.

anoncow said: "The media is going to beat on this for ever"

I agree. None of this is new information either, it was reported the day after the trial ended. Multiple jurors confirming the same version of events. we know. Enough already.

Thanks for replying Max. I see your point on all counts, but it's a done deal. It's not like the state gets a do-over on this. All discussing it does is two things: make people less trusting of jury trials where the race of the victim can be construed as important and forces the family and friends of the victim to relive the trial/etc. Then again, a DP decision would have resulted in likely endless appeals, including likely claims of inability to get a fair trial in Pulaski County due to over the top media attention, especially from Ms. Pressly's employer, KATV, including the "you're gonna die" commentary during the perp walk.

"One of the jurors said three black female jurors were holdouts and that Vance's family situation seemed to be a factor in their decision." Sad, sad. Below is my comment from last Fri. night:

"I would be interested to know if the holdouts were African-American; my gut tells me it is likely that at least one was. If so, I'd love to know why they did what they did; did they identify with Vance or his monster of a mother, or could they not identify sufficiently with the white victims.

If they "stood firmly" against death simply because they're anti-death penalty, then they lied during jury selection; they were ringers for the defense. The whole thing is sickening.

The interesting thing is that I bet anything the Plumerville cop-killer (who will be tried in Conway County) will get death, even though his crime, while also abhorrent, is in a way more excusable; he was in a stolen car, panicked when pulled over, and shot the officer. That is nothing compared to the vermin Vance who, after Anne fought back (unlike the Marianna lady) instead of submitting to rape/sodomy, decided to beat her brains in.

Posted by: FromThePines | November 13, 2009 07:24 PM "

So it turns out that the three holdout jurors were African-American women. Imagine that.

I am tempted to say I told you so, but then eLwood would just call me a racist again.

The prosecution is damn lucky the trial didn't end up with a hung jury.

The 9 jurors who voted for death also swore that they could impose a life sentence. Did they lie, and were they ringers for the prosecution?

Sarajane,

Each time I try to make this clearer, I fail.

By saying the jurors swore they "could" impose the death penalty, they were not swearing they "would." I was attempting to make that distinction, not suggest they'd done something wrong.

No juror has claimed those who didn't vote for death said they wouldn't vote for death under any circumstances. They were quoted as saying that, after hearing the mitigating circumstances, they couldn't vote for death in THIS CASE as it was finally presented. That wouldn't constitute a broken oath.

Have I clarified this at all?

Yes, and thank you, Max. From the Pines suggested above that they lied and were ringers for the defense. I was responding more to that assertion than to your post, though I probably blended the two.

Well, I will tell you that I told you so. I figured that they were before the secret was out and said so on this blog. I have been on several murder trials and two involved black male defendants. In both cases black females were the holdouts. It is jury nullification and justice is not served. However, in our zeal to bow down to political correctness justice will continue to be abused like this.

>>even though his crime, while also abhorrent, is in a way more excusable; he was in a stolen car, panicked when pulled over, and shot the officer.<<

Explain to the readers in Arkansas just WHAT you find "more excusable" about that?

.

*I have been on several murder trials and two involved black male defendants. In both cases black females were the holdouts. It is jury nullification and justice is not served. However, in our zeal to bow down to political correctness justice will continue to be abused like this.*
Posted by: beauragard

Beau, we are clearly not on the same page on this. What happened in the Vance trial was NOT jury nullification. Vance was not acquitted.

There is nothing wrong with jurors bringing their prejudices into the jury, if thay have a pulse, they have prejudices. If they feel they can still be fair in judging the facts, irrespective of their prejudices, then that's all one can ask. Justice is not abused here.

My point was to observe what is widely known among lawyers and trial consultants, that there is a tendency for black women to have a certain prejudice about cases involving white women victims and black male defendants. And the odds of that tendency being present in any given individual increase as the number of those individuals increases. Having 4 African-American women on the jury created a potential hazard for the prosecution. It only would have taken one to create a hung jury, or to prevent execution. As it happened 3 prevented the execution.

But this is not an abuse of the system, it is the system.

I happen to agree with the 3 holdouts, by the way. I think this was the best outcome for all concerned.

Is it legal for the jurors to give out this information, the identity of the 3 holdouts against the death penalty?

is that grounds for an appeal?

Even though I am not a strong proponent of the death penalty, I have never seen a case that called for the death penalty more than this one. The viciousness of his attack on this unsuspecting woman was meant to kill her, and in my opinion, was solely to keep her from being able to identify him. If we aren't going to execute the likes of Curtis Lavelle Vance, then we shouldn't be executing anybody. His poor childhood notwithstanding, the law is the law. There is no way that mitigating factors can outweigh what he did to her.

I had a pretty lousy childhood myself. I've observed and experienced things that would make most of you cringe in horror. Trust me when I say that it would make Vance's childhood look like a carousel ride. So if I ever decide to "take out" some of the people who have ticked me off, I'll make sure that my attorneys introduce into evidence all of the sordid details of my background. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to have some simpatico jurors take up my cause in the jury room.

All kidding aside, the difference between dear Lavelle and myself is that I know the difference between right and wrong. I am not going to kill my boss, even though she ticks me off beyond belief almost every single day. Why? Because I know that it's wrong. And I also know that I would be caught. And unlike dear Lavelle, the people who would judge me wouldn't identify with me because of my race. They would just be judging me on my crime. And well they should.

This may not have been jury nullification. But it's as close to it as you can get.

If anyone ever deserved to die for his crime, Curtis Lavelle Vance does. And he isn't going to do so. And THAT'S a crime.

Pandora, Im sorry you had a traumatic childhood. you're right, I can't imagine.

I have two close friends whose mothers abused them horribly, and neither one of them grew up to kill anybody. one is an attorney and one is an RN.

I dont believe anything as complicated as the question of why someone can take the life of another human being can ever be boiled down to one factor.

I also can't imagine what's going on in the minds of Ms Pressly's family, but one consolation of the sentence of life without parole is that there won't be an automatic appeal and they wont have to listen to numerous friends and family members pleading that his life be spared. Because his mother didnt love him or any other reason. and this does give him a good long time to sit and think about what he did. at least, I think that would be a consolation but hopefully i won't ever know. most of us will be spared the horror that this young womans family has been through, after all.

you also have to wonder if some of the other jurors were secretly relieved that he didnt get the death penalty even though possibly they felt pressured into voting for it for any number of reasons. we wont ever know what goes on in someone else's mind unless, Lord help us all, each and every one of the jurors decides to tell us, and im pretty sure thats a bad idea. the national enquirer might set up its HQ here and never leave or something.

It is nullification in the sense of the punishment being meted out based upon the evidence. The black females couldn't find him innocent of the crime due to dna but they could ignore the evidence relative to sentencing. This is what I was referring to. They probably lied when they were being qualified relative to the death penalty. The knew that regardless of the evidence that they would refuse the death penalty. That is illegal but they will get away with it because no white judge is going to charge them.

"From the Pines suggested above that they lied and were ringers for the defense."

Actually, sarajane, I wrote that if they "voted against death for Vance "simply because they're anti-death penalty, then they lied during jury selection; they were ringers for the defense." Max explained this better than I.

As for my comment about the Plumerville cop-killing, I explained in detail why although that case is abhorrent, it is not as deserving of the death penalty as the murder of Pressly (although I think both are). That elwood could not understand this is not surprising. Pandora explained this situation very well.

With regard the upcoming death penalty trial of the scumbag who gunned down the army recruiters in West Little Rock:

"You heard it here first: "Mr." Muhammad will escape the death penalty. If Vance didn't get it, this guy certainly won't. Why? Because he will be tried in Pulaski County. It's just like the first rule of real estate--location, location, location. If the trial were held in, say, Saline or Grant County, the jury would probably take up a collection to buy the rope."

The Pressly verdict has to hearten Muhuammad's attorney's. You can bet they will be doing all they can to seat as many African-American females on the jury as possible.