Rules offer insights on grand jury
Enquirer Watch:
"Q: How did Mr. Fagel become jury foreman, and what is the foreman's job?
A: The jurors select a foreman by voting. The foreman is technically the leader of the jury, but he has no more voting power than any other juror. "
Ok, this would be the case for a petit jury, but based one the Ohio Revised Code Section 2939.02 Selection of grand jury which states that "The judge of the court of common pleas may select any person who satisfies the qualifications of a juror and whose name is not included in the annual jury list or on a ballot deposited in the jury wheel or automation data processing storage drawer, or whose name is not contained in an automated data processing information storage device, to preside as foreman of the grand jury, in which event the grand jury shall consist of the foreman so selected and fourteen additional grand jurors selected from the jury wheel or by use of the automation data processing equipment and procedures in the manner provided in this section."
Today on WLW several callers who claimed to have been on grand juries support the fact that the foreperson was selected by the judge, not by the vote of the other jury members. Some of the callers were sure of this, other described a very informal process where "someone" asked who wanted to be foreperson, and only one guy raised his hand. That guy was made foreman, and that "someone" was most surely the judge.
One of many demagogues of the Buzz, Jay Love, praised this article for describing how Grand Jury selection works. I would agree, except for the section I mentioned above. Now, since the perception that this one part of the article is a little bit invalid, I am sure Jay would have to agree that this brings everything else in the article under complete suspicion. He must agree that the reporter, editor, and publisher put the fix in to mislead all of Cincinnati! Jay must now be calling for that reporter and editor to be fired!!!! The oppressors must be vanquished. We must raise ourselves, and our children. We must not let the racists force us to read newspapers!!! Reporter Brutality must be stopped! NO JUSTICE, NO PEA...........well you know.
Thursday, September 05, 2002
Relpy from City Beat on My Post regarding an Article by Doug Trapp
Subj:
Date: 09/05/2002 1:37:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: gflannery@citybeat.com
To: CincyBlog@aol.com
CC: dtrapp@citybeat.com
Dear Brian,
I am writing to correct your statements about Doug Trapp's article on Stonewall Cincinnati.
If the use of the terms "uprising" and "rebellion" qualify a person for your journalism hall of shame, it is I, not Mr. Trapp, who deserve the nomination. Fact is, Doug used the term "riot"; in editing the article, I changed the word to "uprising" and "rebellion."
Mr. Trapp's article describes the reaction of some Stonewall activists to what happened in April 2001, saying they were "energized" by the events following the police shooting of Timothy Thomas. I think it safe to say that what the activists found "energizing" was not property damage or physical assault, but rather the spontaneous expressions of moral outrage that filled the streets. In the context of the article, "uprising" and "rebellion" are more informative and more accurate than "riot."
But perhaps more to the point, the actual violence in April 2001 was a relatively small part of what happened in the streets; far more people participated in nonviolent, albeit noisy, street protests than in any kind of activity that would qualify as "rioting." Use of the term "riot" unfairly denigrates the legitimate anger prompted by police brutality, just as Charlie Luken's use of the term "terrorists" to describe the civil-rights boycott of Cincinnati unfairly characterized their movement.
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your commentary.
Sincerely,
Greg Flannery
News editor
CityBeat
I will have a response later on tonight.
Subj:
Date: 09/05/2002 1:37:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: gflannery@citybeat.com
To: CincyBlog@aol.com
CC: dtrapp@citybeat.com
Dear Brian,
I am writing to correct your statements about Doug Trapp's article on Stonewall Cincinnati.
If the use of the terms "uprising" and "rebellion" qualify a person for your journalism hall of shame, it is I, not Mr. Trapp, who deserve the nomination. Fact is, Doug used the term "riot"; in editing the article, I changed the word to "uprising" and "rebellion."
Mr. Trapp's article describes the reaction of some Stonewall activists to what happened in April 2001, saying they were "energized" by the events following the police shooting of Timothy Thomas. I think it safe to say that what the activists found "energizing" was not property damage or physical assault, but rather the spontaneous expressions of moral outrage that filled the streets. In the context of the article, "uprising" and "rebellion" are more informative and more accurate than "riot."
But perhaps more to the point, the actual violence in April 2001 was a relatively small part of what happened in the streets; far more people participated in nonviolent, albeit noisy, street protests than in any kind of activity that would qualify as "rioting." Use of the term "riot" unfairly denigrates the legitimate anger prompted by police brutality, just as Charlie Luken's use of the term "terrorists" to describe the civil-rights boycott of Cincinnati unfairly characterized their movement.
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your commentary.
Sincerely,
Greg Flannery
News editor
CityBeat
I will have a response later on tonight.
Defense upset that city lawyer headed grand jury
The defense is not upset; the defense is out tainting the jury pool. I think Sharon Zealey will be looking to get as many black people on the jury as possible. It appears she is going for a nullification defense. She will scream about a conspiracy, show no evidence of one, defame many people, and hope for a hung jury. This will end up being a mini-OJ trial, and I would not be surprised to see some of it on Court TV.
The defense is not upset; the defense is out tainting the jury pool. I think Sharon Zealey will be looking to get as many black people on the jury as possible. It appears she is going for a nullification defense. She will scream about a conspiracy, show no evidence of one, defame many people, and hope for a hung jury. This will end up being a mini-OJ trial, and I would not be surprised to see some of it on Court TV.
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
Queen City Soapbox: Grand Jury Follies
Chris has summed up the fracas over Stephen Fagel better than I did or could. I have just been amazed at talk radio host Jay Love's demagoguery on this entire issue. You would think Twitty has been lynched on Fountain Square. I am not sure, but I think the "Black Fist's" racist propaganda might actually be starting to sink in.
Chris has summed up the fracas over Stephen Fagel better than I did or could. I have just been amazed at talk radio host Jay Love's demagoguery on this entire issue. You would think Twitty has been lynched on Fountain Square. I am not sure, but I think the "Black Fist's" racist propaganda might actually be starting to sink in.
CityBeat: Stonewall Decides
This "news" article is horrible biased. I know City Beat is a progressive-populist publication, but their revisionism on recent history is not even close to objective journalism. This section of the article demonstrates this quite clearly: "McCleese and Bruins were energized by the social movement that followed the April 2001 uprising in Over-the-Rhine. From the rebellion emerged two new groups -- the Coalition for a Just Cincinnati and Citizens Concerned for Justice -- that joined the Black United Front in a boycott of downtown businesses. "
If Doug Trapp instead used "Civil Disturbance" or maybe "unrest" in place of "uprising" and "rebellion,” I would not be chastising him. Calling the April 2001 riots an “uprising” and a “rebellion” is nothing short of revisionist propaganda right from the playbook of the boycott groups. I would understand not using “riot.” I would disagree with not using it, but it is in the realm of reasonable journalism. Doug has moved away from journalism. He is nothing more than a propagandist. Doug’s story is otherwise reasonable, but placing those terms as a matter of “fact” is horrid journalism. Doing such is a form of imposing a false “truth” on his readers. Any honest reporter would shun him in a NY minute. He has made my Media Hall of Shame.
This "news" article is horrible biased. I know City Beat is a progressive-populist publication, but their revisionism on recent history is not even close to objective journalism. This section of the article demonstrates this quite clearly: "McCleese and Bruins were energized by the social movement that followed the April 2001 uprising in Over-the-Rhine. From the rebellion emerged two new groups -- the Coalition for a Just Cincinnati and Citizens Concerned for Justice -- that joined the Black United Front in a boycott of downtown businesses. "
If Doug Trapp instead used "Civil Disturbance" or maybe "unrest" in place of "uprising" and "rebellion,” I would not be chastising him. Calling the April 2001 riots an “uprising” and a “rebellion” is nothing short of revisionist propaganda right from the playbook of the boycott groups. I would understand not using “riot.” I would disagree with not using it, but it is in the realm of reasonable journalism. Doug has moved away from journalism. He is nothing more than a propagandist. Doug’s story is otherwise reasonable, but placing those terms as a matter of “fact” is horrid journalism. Doing such is a form of imposing a false “truth” on his readers. Any honest reporter would shun him in a NY minute. He has made my Media Hall of Shame.
CityBeat: Your Negro Tour Guide "Can You Hear Me Now?"
I can hear, but this literary representation of a spoken word hip-hoppy poem just lost me. It might work in a coffee house, but I am not impressed with in on paper.
I can hear, but this literary representation of a spoken word hip-hoppy poem just lost me. It might work in a coffee house, but I am not impressed with in on paper.
Action Agency to go against boycott
This was a big blow to the boycotters. It is unfortunate that this story broke the day after the Twitty Indictments. I can't emphasize enough Judge Nathaniel Jones report that the CAA board members where threatened and being intimidated by boycotters. I wish these statements were made to the police, but I don't know to level the actions reached. The next test will be the AFL-CIO dinner, followed by the Boss's concert.
This was a big blow to the boycotters. It is unfortunate that this story broke the day after the Twitty Indictments. I can't emphasize enough Judge Nathaniel Jones report that the CAA board members where threatened and being intimidated by boycotters. I wish these statements were made to the police, but I don't know to level the actions reached. The next test will be the AFL-CIO dinner, followed by the Boss's concert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)