Conference hydra::dejavu

Associated Press Fri 18-JUL-1986 01:11                          Psychic Juror

   Psychic Excused From Jury Predicted Outcome Of Criminal Case
	 New throughout with woman predicting guilt, man convicted.

   DENVER (AP) - A woman who described herself as a psychic and was
excused from a jury after announcing she already knew the verdict
predicted in a sealed note to the judge that the defendant would be
found guilty, and he was.
   Daryl Keith Pitts, 18, was convicted Thursday of burglary, two
days after District Judge Robert Fullerton released Lynette Todd
from jury duty. Todd, in a note that Fullerton kept sealed in his
desk, predicted the outcome.
   Fullerton opened the note in chambers, watched by lawyers on both
sides and all 12 jurors, who learned of the note only after
returning their own verdict.
   ``I believe Mr. Pitts did commit the crime,'' Todd wrote.
   Todd, told of the news at her job as a secretary at St. Joseph
Hospital, said she knew as soon as she saw Pitts, even before
knowing the charges against him, that he was guilty.
   She said she has taken and taught classes on psychic powers but
doesn't use her abilities professionally. ``I think everyone has
psychic ability,'' she said. ``You just have to develop it.''
``She said no matter what the people's evidence would show, it
wouldn't change her verdict, and she was looking right at me.''
   Todd has an unlisted telephone number and couldn't be reached for
further comment.

    re .1:
    
    Sloppy reporting!  The lead sentence said that she knew the _verdict_;
    her note said she believed he _committed_ the crime.  Tremendous
    difference there: there have been enough cases throughout history
    where a jury votes one way and later evidence shows they erred.
    
    Also, and more important to this conference, if shhe had predicted
    the outcome (i.e., the verdict), she'd be showing prognosticory
    powers; by saying she felt he was guilty, she was showing something
    closer to empathy or subconscious telepathy.  Big difference.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

re .2   Semantics. Two or so sentances below that she states she knew he
    was guilty when she saw him. 

    RE .3:  That they corrected their error later, even soon after,
    only partially excuses it.  People generally read only part of
    newspaper articles, hence the "pyramid style" in journalism.  To
    speak "sloppily" *after* a correct statement is excusable, to do
    so before the correct statement is not.
    
    RE .0,.1;  Very little can be inferred from her accuracy.  It is
    unclear from these notes how much background she had on the case
    before she even saw the defendant.  If for example she knew it was
    a burglery and knew unconsciously (from, say, a radio interview
    with a lawyer or judge or law enforcement officer) that say 75%
    (I'm making this figure up) of burglery's actually brought to court
    end in conviction, then by "knowing" that he did it she would be
    75% sure of matching the conviction -- all subconsciously.  Add in
    *unsubtle* subconsciously perceived attributes, indications of
    socio-economic class for example, and a better estimate would result.
    So far, *nothing really relevant to whether *this* individual committed
    *this* crime has been taken into account*.  Throw in subconsciously
    perceived guilt reactions on the part of the suspect, and you have
    a very great likelihood of a "correct" guilty verdict prediction;
    all on the basis of "evidence" which should be inadmissable.  That
    these same factors always effect jurists, usually without them being
    aware of their subjectivity, is one of the major weaknesses of our
    judicial system (and no, I don't have a better suggestion).
    
    All this does *not* mean that she did not show true paranormal
    abilities.  It only means that in this case we have no way of knowing
    whether she did or not.
    
    Another point to keep in mind is that excusing her did not imply
    any belief in her psychic powers by anyone involved.  A jurist who
    thinks they know in advance whether the defendent is guilty is
    incapable of doing her job (evaluating the presented evidence and
    only that evidence) whether or not their is *any* basis for that
    belief.  It was on the basis of *her* belief in her psychic abilities
    that she was dismissed, no one else's belief was relevant to the
    decision.
    
    				Topher
    

    re .4:
    
    Having sat on a jury (in Massachusetts), I can confirm Topher's
    statement.  You are asked whether you have any opinions about the
    guilt or innocence of any party involved in the trial.  This is
    regardless of how you arrived at it (that doesn't excuse you from
    the jury pool; just the specific trial).  It might be that when
    her opinion was challenged, she said "I know becayuse I'm a psychic,"
    or something of that order.
    
    In Massachusetts, however, they ask also whether you've had any
    _business dealings_ with any principals  in the trial; if you had,
    you'd be excused: that makes it _very_ difficult for civil suits
    against places like Woolworth's, McDonald's, etc.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .2:  definitely sloppy reporting.  i had the same impressions
    of the story.  after reading through it, i was wondering what knowing
    the verdict had to do with knowing he was guilty.
    
    my first note in this file.
    
    -- a tech writer