The jury's job is to decide questions of fact, not questions of law. Tyco's employees should reasonably have known that the money they used was not their own and when they were using it for their personal benefit they were breaching their fiduciary duties to the stockholders. The lady should have been booted from the jury for cause due to her legal experience and potential to improperly influence the jury

A mis-trial should be declared where the jury has been subjected to improper influences. Thus, for example, if jurors were reading about the case in The Times, that would be a problem. Jurors are instructed not to look at the news stories on the outside, and maybe it is wishful thinking to assume they don't, but that's the assumption. So, if the news-papers and chat rooms are commenting on this, I don't see how that has any impact on the fairness of the trial. The effort to have a mistrial declared is zealous advocacy by defense counsel (they're afraid no. 4 will cave eventually) but not, in my opinion, likely to be successful.

Again, I want everybody to understand something, which I posted as a comment to the last entry about this woman -- it may be loads of fun for everybody to slag this woman off . . . but she is the correct one!

The prosecution, from what I understand, did a terrible job in trying to proving the mens rea of Kozlowski with respect to the "taking money not his own" element of the offense. If he had a genuine good faith belief that he was entitled to take the money, then he should be acquitted. Therefore, the prosecution should have pounded home that Koz intentionally took money that did not belong to him. However -- the prosecution basically said, well, Koz had a sense of entitlement, a sense that it was his money to take. Well . . . that's an argument for the defense!!

Apparently the "holdout granny" is the only woman who actually understands this -- because she went to law school. Juries, most of the time, don't necessarily bother paying close attention to or don't understand the nuances of the law.

Upper East Side Granny I see...

I'll track her down and make her an offer she can't refuse.....

Epsom Salt For her Swollen Ankles from walking to and from the courthouse. No Granny can resist it

Apparently jurors's identities aren't sacrosanct, but most media companies won't divulge their names until after the trial. However, with the emergence of Juror No. 4, the Wall Street Journal and Post, as well as other media outlets, have published her name.

i smell a l&o episode- get jerry orbach stat- b4 he retires!

I'm just curious...all the network "news" shows blur/black out the faces of the jurors. Why are the faces shown here? And why the discrepancy as to who can or can't...is it simply preference?

What surprised me about the Times' article was that they quoted so much from the message board posts. This is journalism in the year 2004?

Readers are used to anonymous sources, but the understanding is that the reporter checked the source for credibility and/or authority.

On a message board, nobody knows anything about the source. Could be a Supreme Court justice, or it could be an unemployed crossing guard who has seen every episode of Matlock no less than three times.

Please NY Times, don't freeload off message boards. That's a pretty Blair-like research tactic.