13 January 2009
Tuesday Transcript: What’s that smell?
A new year, and a fresh start — and hopefully breathing fresh air, unlike Judge Staffier-Holtz in Massachusetts last year:
There was a juror seated in seat No. 10, juror 6-5 … who I’d made inquiry of earlier. And I just want the record to reflect, I guess, to be blunt, [the juror], for whatever reason, had some very bad, I guess, to be blunt again, body odor, which was extremely strong, and I was able to detect it in my lobby, as was the clerk, which is a personal matter for that potential juror, but for the fact that her personal problem was [of] such a magnitude that other jurors who had already been picked … either by act or words had indicated discomfort with that problem. … And given the strength of the body odor, I am satisfied that the other jurors would be put at a distinct disadvantage in their efforts to concentrate. So I note your objection, but he has been dismissed.
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts subsequently dealt with the matter and held:
The judge made sufficient findings on the record regarding her concern that the juror’s body odor would affect the ability of other jurors to concentrate. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim fails.
It’s fair to say, as Robert J Ambrogi does, that “Justice may be blind, but it retains a healthy sense of smell.”
Related posts:
- Tuesday Transcript: Reality-based decision-making
- Tuesday Transcript: Kirby the Urbane
- Tuesday Transcript: High Court TV reviews
- Tuesday Transcript: Cut Your Losses
- Tuesday Transcript: Nice Catch
