In Scrushy Trial, Jurors Chose Defense's (Religious) Portrait

[UpInArms]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801613.html

The acquittal of former HealthSouth Corp. chief executive Richard M. Scrushy in Birmingham yesterday suggests that jurors in the case embraced the defense portrayal of Scrushy as a deeply religious son of the South and rejected prosecution witnesses as self-serving and untrustworthy, legal experts said.

The verdict also means federal prosecutors will probably think twice before bringing cases in a popular executive's home town, the experts said.

The verdict, which stunned many lawyers and advocates of stronger corporate governance, followed a trial in which five former HealthSouth chief financial officers testified that Scrushy masterminded a scheme to inflate the company's earnings by $2.7 billion.

During the trial, Scrushy appeared on a morning television show in Birmingham called "Viewpoint" in which he and his wife read Bible verses. He began preaching in fundamentalist churches and invited pastors to the trial. Several jurors said in pretrial questionnaires that they attended church.

...more...

:puke:

[Warpy]

1. Play the Jesus card, get out of jail free

When are people going to wake up to the fact that the Calvinists at the top are SCAMMING THEM???

[KamaAina]

2. This is scary. If fundies won't vote to convict other fundies...

a rotten, lowdown, crooked fundie (such as Scrushy) can get away with anything -- maybe even murder. Let's hope we don't get to find out!

This undermines the very rule of law. Without it, we're on course to become just the sort of theocracy we claim to deplore in places like Iran.

:scared:

Edit: Oh, by the way, what in the Sam Hill was Scrushy doing on television every day while the trial was in progress?!

[AlCzervik]

3. i saw him on the news with his entourage praising Jesus

[Igel]

4. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

They're charging not just bias, but jury tampering of a sort. But the reporter doesn't have the balls to actually allege a connection or the evidence to make the charge stick. So he says A; then he says B; and we're supposed to do his work for him and conclude that A and B are sufficient to yield C.

It's possible, as the reporter says after failing in his initial mission, that "defense efforts to highlight Scrushy's connection to predominately black churches in Birmingham may have won points with the seven black members of the jury." But it makes some bad stereotypes about blacks and religiosity, and strikes me as condescending. The reporter assumes guilt, and has to find a sufficient reason to justify dissing the 'not guilty' plea.

He may have been guilty; he may not have been guilty.

All the fact-based stuff is later in the article. Sometimes I detest journalists.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. kick