Uma Thurman Stalker Convicted and Reporter/Juror Explains Why

On Tuesday, the man who was stalking Uma Thurman was convicted of fourth-degree stalking and second degree aggravated harassment, but was found not guilty of two charges of aggravated harassment.  Sounds like a compromise verdict to me, especially since they deliberated for 7 hours.

One of my favorite parts of jury trials is talking to the jury after the verdict.  (News flash: lawyers are dorks.)  I find it fascinating to hear how the jurors received the evidence and what made them make the decision they did.  And on this jury, there was actually a reporter, who wrote an article about the experience.  (Um, who sat her?  Really?  A reporter on a celebrity stalking trial?)  (I also find jury selection fascinating, see dork, above).

Emily Steel, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal said the jurors considered "was Mr. Jordan simply a lovestruck fan with an odd sense of humor and no sense of boundaries, as the defense argued? Or was he a threat who should face jail time?"  "Where is the line between obsession and menace?"

In regards to Uma Thurman, Ms. Steel wrote:

But was she genuinely afraid? While we believed her testimony, we discussed whether Ms. Thurman could have exaggerated her fear. The fact that she was a famous movie star made us partly charmed, partly suspicious. One juror jokingly said Ms. Thurman isn't that great an actress, but that her delivery on the witness stand was the most heartfelt performance he'd ever seen her give.

Another juror said that, because Ms. Thurman is a celebrity, she should be used to people following her every move. Still another juror reminded us that we shouldn't consider Ms. Thurman any different than an average citizen.

We also discussed Mr. Jordan's actions after he delivered the package. If he had backed off then, we felt he wouldn't have been guilty of stalking. He would have been an obsessed fan suffering from unrequited love.

I'd love to know if she told the other jurors she was a reporter and was writing down everything they said for an article.  Jury deliberations are supposed to be sacred and some jurors may have felt constricted if they knew she was writing a story. 

This whole thing leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.  It would be one thing for her to write about her experiences, and deliberations in general terms, but to directly quote jurors?  That means she was keeping notes the whole time and not really doing her "civic duty."  Then again, all the O.J. jurors were counting on their book deals.

 

source, source