Puzzled by the verdict, I was hoping some reporter would do juror interviews following
John Paul Hernandez's acquittal this week following the TYC sex abuse trial in Lubbock, and Betsy Blaney from AP obliges with new insight into how a former police officer swayed jurors who at first considered Hernandez guilty ("
Juror: Ex-cop swayed deliberations in Texas boys' prison sex case," Feb. 23). The story opens:
A juror in the trial of a former juvenile prison principal acquitted of sexually abusing inmates said Tuesday that a former police officer on the jury helped sway many who initially believed the ex-administrator was guilty.
Nancy Gray told The Associated Press that the officer "did a lot of talking" about reasonable doubt to the eight who believed John Paul Hernandez was guilty when deliberations started.
"A lot of people changed their minds because he kept saying, pressing the point, that he had to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," said Gray, who was the last to agree to the not guilty verdicts. "I was the holdout, all the way through. It was hard. That's why it was very emotional for me."
Hernandez, 45, was accused of sexually abusing five inmates at the West Texas State School in Pyote in 2004 and 2005. He was found not guilty on 14 counts in 11 indictments, including sexual assault, and had faced up to 20 years in prison.
Attempts to reach the former police officer were unsuccessful Tuesday. Several other jurors did not immediately return phone messages.
Gray said jurors "absolutely" would have thought differently had there been physical evidence. Prosecutors presented no DNA, no fingerprints and no hair samples to back up the former inmates' stories, though the jury believed each man had testified truthfully about having been abused by Hernandez.
Gray said deliberations grew testy at times and she unloaded her sentiments on the other jurors.
She said she told them: "'You know this bastard is guilty' and I was bawling. These boys are going to live with this the rest of their lives. Maybe they've done some bad things, but they didn't deserve what happened to them."
It's funny how police officers can be such sticklers for "reasonable doubt" when somebody with a badge is accused as opposed to all the cases of Texas DNA exonerees whose alibi witnesses were ignored and obvious doubt was cast aside in deference to a convict-at-any-cost mentality. I didn't sit through the testimony and have no concrete basis for second guessing the outcome, but this juror's comments make me wonder if the result could have been different if the jurors had all been average citizens and an ex-cop (with all the anti-prisoner biases that potentially entails) hadn't dominated the deliberations. Sometimes such cases are won or lost at the jury selection phase, and that may well be what happened here.
.jpg)
41 comments:
Lots of cases are won or lost at the jury selection. It's kind of curious in this instance that neither the prosecution NOR the defense attorney used one of their peremptory strikes on this juror. I don't know that it's appropriate to stereotype law enforcement officers the way you're suggesting here, Grits. Conventional wisdom suggests that their are other categories of prospective jurors who seem to be especially prone to strictly follow the instructions of the trial judge, especially as it relates to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Teachers, engineers, physicians, preachers and lawyers come to mind.
An ex-cop convinced people to follow the law instead of listening to a lady in hysterics. God forbid.
11:40 says, "I don't know that it's appropriate to stereotype law enforcement officers the way you're suggesting"
We'll have to agree to disagree. Very few police officers ever publicly support aggressive prosecution of police misconduct, and the police unions where most of them pay dues fight tooth and nail to keep officers from being held accountable. It's the main reason they exist. Then there's the "Blue Wall of Silence" where they tend to protect one another from misconduct (see here, e.g.). Given that, there's ample precedent to think an ex-cop might enter such a case with biases against these particular witnesses and in favor of the guy with a badge.
I do agree I'm surprised the juror wasn't struck for the exact reasons mentioned above.
Did the officer maybe know Hernandez?And not diclose this????
Texas justice. Round and round we go...ROFLMAO!
**The best defense money can buy...CALL ME!**
This is why I cringe everytime someone says "this is why I believe in the jury system". It's the luck of the draw, folks--draw a good jury, a good lawyer, you're in luck. But like Churchill said of democracy: it's the worst system in the world except for all the others.
Yes Grits, I remember how tooth-and-nail the police union fought the proposals to require evidence beyond the single witness testimony of a police officer to get convictions when we were comrades-in-arms re: the Tulia sting.
Reasonable doubt re: Coleman wasn't good enough then. Though it should have been.
Charles in Tulia
I suppose on this site the only way Hernandez would be considered innocent is if he was convicted then proven innocent later. Apparently police are the evil ones, and the criminals innocent victims.
One of Hernandez's accusers said Tuesday that he was stunned by the verdict.
"I can't believe this happened," the young man, now 26, said in an e-mailed statement through his attorney. "What Mr. Hernandez did to me ruined my life. I told the jury the truth, and now I'll never be able to get over what happened. When I broke the law, I went to TYC. When he broke the law, there was no consequence."
Figures, what can we expect from these types people. So sad, these people will do anything to protect “their own” no matter how disgusting the crime. Then again, this ex copper may also have sympathy’s for the pedophilic lifestyle. You never can tell with these grown up school yard bullies who go into law enforcement as opposed to seeking help to become a decent human being. Sounds like that’s what this gay did, bully the jury. Those poor jurors will agonize with themselves for allowing this guy to bully them to go against what they thought was right in the first place.
So, assuming the tyc staff has enough young boys to go around, how soon before Mr. Hernandez gets to go back to work?
Sheldon
Gray said jurors "absolutely" would have thought differently had there been physical evidence. Prosecutors presented no DNA, no fingerprints and no hair samples to back up the former inmates' stories, though the jury believed each man had testified truthfully about having been abused by Hernandez.
And from a post by Grits on 01/08/2011.........
Since there's no DNA evidence - or really, after the recantation, no evidence at all - it's impossible definitively to "prove the negative," i.e., that Hall didn't do something 17 years ago. Since the 1970s, there's been a steady push to make it easier to prosecute sex crimes, which often stem from he-said she-said circumstances. I understand the motive behind that push, but this type of situation demonstrates the flip-side of the equation. Making it "easier" to prosecute child molesters is a great thing if they're really child molesters, but it also makes it easier to convict the innocent based on relatively flimsy evidence.
You know, it's actually kind of funny watching all of the posters on here getting all stirred up over an acquittal. In any other context, y'all would be celebrating the prosecution not getting a conviction. I've seen any number of times Grits and others being critical of unfair the system is and how the deck is so frequently stacked against the accused. Well here ya go!
On a semi-related note, was this defendant a peace officer or some type of guard or prison official (or whatever they're referred to in TYC)? I know in my part of the state, there is absolutely no love lost between the real police and prison guards. In my experience most real police have an extremely condescending attitude toward prison guards.
The man was a principal. He was really new to the prison system, and was actually rather naive. I believe that's why he got into trouble. He tried to do the school just like any public school.
Or how about holding the "hold out" accountable for changes her verdict in contravention to her conscience? If she believed the man was guilty, she should have continued to say so all the way down the line to a hung jury.
But she wanted to get home to dinner, too.
I'd say this news casts reasonable doubt on the jury verdict. I wish I could say I was surprised.
Hernandez becomes the latest in a long line - stretching back a good 100 years - of juvenile justice employees who seemed obviously guilty but escaped prosecution because juvenile inmates have rarely been viewed as credible witnesses.
Look at the current horrific case in Pennsylvania for an example of how far this kind of thinking can go.
I'm sure there will be a chorus of commenters on this site who will give the usual tired reasons why juveniles should not be believed, ever, when they allege abuse.
This view is no better than those who say that all juvenile justice staffers are abusers - also not true. But abusers do exist, particularly in environments that encourage and facilitate abusive situations, notwithstanding the verdict in the Hernandez case.
Bill Bush
I heard from court watchers of the case that the ex-cop did not reveal that fact at all during jury selection. Curious.
Hernandez was tried and convicted in the press, along with the Texas Youth Commission. It's a miracle he got an acquittal. As to the ex-cop not saying he was an ex-cop during jury selection was probably because he wasn't asked. The last time I went to jury duty they asked if anyone was in law enforcement. I answered yes then, but I wouldn't now.
yea 4:42 very curious...i also wonder just how many days before the trial did this so-called ex cop actualy BECOME an excop!
I think Ranty is talking to himself again.Good meds and therapy for that problem bra....
You keep refering Hernandez as someone with a badge, what badge he was not a cop. Im a Police Officer and happen to be one of those that have thrown a few badge wearing law breakers in prison, don't you dare stereotype me. you say Very few police officers ever publicly support aggressive prosecution of police misconduct. Cops dont talk publicly.
Most cops can't express themselves properly, so they speak little in public.
This trial was set up and the results known before the trial started, per Austin's direction.
Bill, I agree with you that there is abuse, and that juvenile offenders often do tell the truth. In fact, in my 27 years experience working with juveniles, I find that only a small percentage are liars, and of that percentage is an even smaller number of people who are good at it. I think the biggest mistake made in the case against Hernandez was the fact that they went around dorm to dorm soliciting victims. By doing that they were bound to find the con men. It is very possible that one or two of those five men were telling the truth, but if just one of them was perceived as a con by the ex-police officer, who has developed skills in recognizing such, then it taints the testimony of the others. Sexual predators tend to groom their victims, and it would be an ambitious one to try and handle five at once. At any rate, I believe the argument used in the trial was a legitimate one. If you're going to throw a man in prison, you should be damn sure he's guilty.
6:55 writes, "don't you dare stereotype me. you say Very few police officers ever publicly support aggressive prosecution of police misconduct. Cops dont talk publicly."
So my stereotype is that cops don't publicly support aggressive prosecution of police misconduct, and you agree that's true but somehow I'm stereotyping you?
Cops speak publicly to support prosecution in many, MANY instances, just not when there are fellow cops on the dock. Then, they make anonymous blog comments about how misunderstood they are, but would never speak up publicly. Your comment proves my point.
Acquitted. End of story. It's your system. Live with it.
5:56- You are part of the problem.
Grits, I think the problem is that you mentioned a badge supporting a badge. The only folks in TYC who are cops are members of OIG - the criminal investigators and the apprehension specialists and their supervisors. In fact, there was a problem recently with some JCOs who were sporting phony badges that looked like LE badges. I cannot believe this ex-cop supported Hernandez just because he worked in corrections. That is a big stretch, especially since the case was brought upon the investigation by a Ranger.
Nope. I'm a realist. It's over. Now we're looking to assign blame (because another sneaky crooked cop outfoxed a jury?). Lucky for us there was a "cop" on the jury to blame. Conspiracy theories anyone?
As I commented to a coworker the defense was that the juveniles lied, and that is exactly what every sex predator says about their victims. I don't know, wasn't there: maybe the allegations were made up and maybe they weren't, but if he had not had the money to hire a good defense attorney and that for six years, he would been on his way from TYC to TDCJ.
There is a big difference between the cases of Hernandez and Brookins. Brookins had a long history. His history at TDCJ was not passed on when he hired on at TYC. Brookins got caught in San Saba with porn on his computer, but was quickly transferred to West Texas by his mentor. She then covered for him as long as she could. Hernandez had no such history, that we know of at least. Furthermore, the kids started making allegations against Hernandez after the Brookins thing started coming out. So, maybe, just maybe, Hernandez was innocent. That maybe is what is called "reasonable doubt." The jury did its job. Whether the prosecution did its job is another story.
Wait... Grits... Principals have badges? I think all that guy had was an ID card buddy. He was a civilian government employee. I don't understand how you can say the ex-cop gave him preferential treatment? Maybe if the jury had a bunch of school PRINCIPALS on the jury I could understand your assertion.
Well, it sounds like you are bigoted against law enforcement. Hell, the juror wasn't even a cop anymore. For all we know, he was college cop for two days and then quit.
Well, whatever. All cops are looking out for school principals.... Great logic.
I was ran out of TYC in 2007. I was falsely accused of abuse of offical capacity and passed a OIG polygraph, but was still terminated. In 2007, I thought it was the end of my world because I had worked so hard for a facility that I truly believed was helping youth. All came to an end because of one angry parent that caught the ear of an overzealous Senator (Whitmire) and the newly appointed Conservator and good buddy of Gov. Perry by the name of Jay Kimbrough. Looking back on it all now, I can now see that it was truly a blessing. I am a much happier person today than what I was while working for TYC, and I still believe that youth who make bad decisions can still be guided in to being productive citizens. God bless all of you that are still at TYC for the right reason.
badge-Id whatever! No one that worked corrections works correction. should have sit on that jury. Hernandez was just a principal, but in a corrections facility. With a corrections mindset. And if this juror is speaking the truth. He sounds like a bully,and was a very pushy man.I still say not enough came out in this trial. Like kids cant just say I have been abused and be set free. That was not made clear to the jury, are they would have known they made it up BS was not the case. Also the I overheard testimony that was weak. And DNA if any should have been collected right then. Are any other evidence, well part of the tyc scandal was cover up. And if there was only 1 victim I can kinda see the not guilty, but 5 victim's does seem realistic to me that he was not guilty. I believe it was a combination of things.
Jamie, I used to think Sheldon was the most obtuse person here, but I was wrong. You're going to believe what you believe, but it is my understanding that the student who Brookins abused was removed from the the facility. He might have actually been released if he was past his minimum length of stay. These young men may have had lots of reasons to lie, including just getting the attention, but they didn't get to TYC because of their brilliance. As to pushy jurors, we are only hearing from one, who tried to manipulate with tears and calling Hernandez a "bastard." Law enforcement people are usually excluded from jury duty, but there is nothing legally preventing them from serving. The lawyers have a limited amount of strikes. Apparently the prosecution didn't see this man as a problem. It's easy to second guess, but it's slanted articles like this one that created the media firestorm that cost a lot a good people their jobs.
Anyone who has lived in the world of TYC knows that the staff is responsible for that world of abuse. They hid it and cover for each other. The people who work for TYC at the 2 units I was at take advantage of the kids at every turn. Mostly the black female staff are the ones having the affairs with kids. And since we are offenders who will believe us. No boy would confess to letting a male staff do things to them, I know those boys were telling the truth. Most if not all TYC staff are losers and that’s why they have to work for the state. It’s wrong people are so stupid to believe anything a TYC staff would say. My name is Joe and I was in TYC from March 2005 until August 2007 at Mart and Gainesville. That is a world of pain the staff bring upon us, no help, they just make thinks worst. Buts it’s their world and they wallow in it like pigs in slop. My unit was run by a white man but he let them do whatever they wanted. Mostly the black staff, they tried to be all ghetto with you and then screw you over. I receiving the help I need now through my church but the way staff treat you in TYC just makes a kid worst. No one believes us and that’s why those demonic people can do whatever they want to kids and the public is dumb.
8:05 I'm sorry you had a hard time in TYC. I hope you really do get help from your church. Everything you say means you are still not taking responsibility for your own mistakes. It's you that are dumb, not the public.
That ex cop may just have been an EX COP because he was busted for the same crimes that Hernandez committed. They are known for that, we call em "Lubbock's Finest" sex offenders. One was indicted last week for raping his own adopted daughters and a neighbor. They all cover for each other.
I live in Lubbock and I do believe that the verdict was pre-determined and the ex cop was in on it. The Lubbock Avalanche Journal didn't even publish the acquittal news story until several people complained. They did not even allow people to post comments on line about the verdict. It's the way they operate here, their MO. That's how you know this trial was a big sham and a travesty of justice!
10:09 Being from Lubbock doesn't give you any moral authority. Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. If the attorney was able to get a ringer in the jury, I want to hire that attorney if I ever get into trouble, because he's a frickin' genious.
So, 10:01 p.m., there's a story that an ex-cop held out for reasonable doubt, and in your mind he's guilty of the same crime you believe Hernandez committed. Was there a space ship involved, too? was Elvis there?
Some of the postings here prove the wisdom of having a good voir dire!
Years ago I worked for TYC. An outside church group was touring the dorms. When the tour was over one of the church people came up and told me how he had overheard a conversation between three of the boys on one of the dorms. They were planning to make false allegations on two of the JCO staff members to get them off of their case. The individual identified the boys and game me a statement to the facts. When the boys made their false allegations I filed a case on the boys and they were found guilty and the case was upheld by TYC Central Office. Each of the boys got an extra sixty days added to their minimum length of stay. Had the outside visitor not reported what he heard two hard working staff members would have had their lives trashed by three TYC youth. So before you line up with the youth at TYC being so truthful you might want to give it a little more thought. The case I related above was not out of the norm. On many occasions the cameras caught the TYC youth being less than truthful. If the youth lie not much happened to them but the staff could be stripped of their job and retirement on the word of a few of the youth.
Brookens was a pervert and he was reported to the Texas Rangers and TYC brass long before the case blew open. The entire case is a cover-up of the real perverts and their clean-up crew ( Jay Kimbrough - Lydia Banard). Why no charges of failure to report child abuse against all of the officials who knew for years about the situation?
This case is so convoluted by design of master cover-up man Jay Kimbrough no one will ever know the truth of what happened. Looks like there are plenty of liars on both sides of this situation! Reminds me of the old TV show where you had to figure out who was telling the truth. Will the real truthful person please stand up!!!!
Anonymous 2/25/2011 09:11:00 PM
It’s obvious you are deflecting. Perhaps you should take reasonability for your actions. You could have been in TYC way too long and have become institutionalized and may not be capable of taking responsibility. Pity, like so many of your kind. Unless pedophilia is an important employee benefit perhaps a career move to TDCJ would be better for you. Sounds like you have no business working with kids, like so many of your kind employed at TYC.
Post a Comment