SHEL TRIAL JUROR’S JITTERS
Begs to leave, panicked note airs infighting
A juror at the corruption trial of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver upended deliberations Tuesday with claims of mistreatment by her fellow panelists — and a request to meet privately with the judge.
The unidentified woman, one of eight on the jury, forced a halt to proceedings by sending out a note at about 12:40 p.m., less than two hours after she and the 11 other jurors began weighing the evidence against the oncepowerful Manhattan Democrat.
“I am wondering if there is any way I can be excused from this case, because I have a different opinion/view so far in this case and it is making me feel very, very uncomfortable . . . I’m feeling pressured, stressed out . . . told that I’m not using my common sense, my heart is pounding and my head feels weird,” she wrote.
“I am so stressed out right now that I can’t even write normally. I don’t feel like I can be myself right now! I need to leave!”
The surprise development seemed to catch both sides off guard.
Prosecutors immediately requested that the juror be replaced with an alternate, apparently suspecting she is the lone holdout against conviction.
Silver, 71, is accused of trading taxpayer cash and political favors for legal work he supplied to two law firms that paid him nearly $4 million in referral fees.
Silver’s lawyers asked for more time to consider the juror’s note, but those discussions were inter rupted by a note from another, unidentified juror.
“One of the jurors is having difficulty distinguishing whether or not exchanging New York state funds for something is illegal,” the note said.
The note also asked if there was a “code of conduct” for state politicians that could help set the first juror straight.
Manhattan federal Judge Valerie Caproni refused to replace the juror, telling the lawyers that “it seems that there is some deliberation going on.”
“It’s too early for a juror to throw in the towel,” she added.
During some tense haggling that followed, Silver’s lawyers insisted that Caproni merely tell the jurors that deliberations were still at an early stage and remind them that they had been given lengthy legal instructions earlier in the day.
At one point, Caproni noted that lead defense lawyer Steven Molo was shaking his head so vigorously that he looked like a “bobblehead” doll.
“I look like a lawyer who wants the jury to follow the law,” Molo responded with more than a hint of annoyance.
Molo also objected to Caproni’s suggestion that she give the jury a slightly modified legal definition of “quid pro quo” for the case.
“This is calling [attention to] one aspect of the charge to the exclusion of aspects critical to the defense,” he said.
Caproni eventually summoned the jurors back into the courtroom, where their demeanor and actions gave no clue as to which woman wanted out.
Caproni repeated the definition of an illegal quid pro quo, then told the panelists to be respectful toward one another and to get back to work.
“I want to remind you that each juror is entitled to his and her opinion,” she said.
“The essence of deliberation is to listen and exchange views with each other.”
But at about 5:30 p.m., the unhappy juror sent out another note, asking: “Can I have a meeting with Judge Caproni after everyone is dismissed?”
Caproni tabled arguments over the request until Wednesday.
Before dismissing the jurors for the night, she also told them to let her know if they were willing to work past noon Wednesday, when deliberations were set to halt ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday.