Re: Hotel ownership employee views Erin Andrews vi... - Page 4

Plaid Pants2 · ‎03-14-2015

Jurors are given instructions by the judge as to what they can and cannot do.

Yes, they are unsequestered, but that does not mean that the jurors can just do whatever they want.

The judge may have given the jurors specific instructions to NOT look at the video.

Do you want the jurrors to go against what a judge has told them to do/not do?

If they disobey the judge, and the judge finds out about it, it can result in being removed from the jury, or having a mistrial declared.

For example, if someone is sitting on a jury for a murder trial, the judge will give instructions to NOT visit the murder site, even though the jury is not sequestered.

jaxs mom · ‎04-18-2012

Completely disgusting and I don't believe the apology was sincere.

Don't Change Your Authenticity for Approval

KentuckyWoman · ‎03-13-2010

How stupid does a person have to be to openly view the video in a public restaurant after he has just finished testifying in court about this very lawsuit? This man is an executive with the company that owns the hotel. I wonder if he has any daughters and if so how he would feel about it then. I hope she gets every last penny she is asking for.

jaxs mom · ‎04-18-2012

@Marianne1 wrote:
The witness, Neal Peskind, is the SVP for the company which reps the hotel group owning this franchised Marriott. He testified in the trial the other day.

He was out to dinner with his wife and others on Tuesday night, and they were discussing the trial (which is not illegal unless there is a gag order, which there is not in this case).

He was overheard by the staff, allegedly stating that this trial was costing him millions and he was going to view the video as much as he wanted. The staff asked him to stop.

This is not quite the story he is telling, of course. He says that his dinner companions were watching the video, and he asked them to stop. He then claims that they did not stop "as fast as he would have liked".

Either way, bad taste, and goes to prove Erin's point of continuing problems stemming from the recording being made and posted.

Culpability of the franchise partners is one of the main questions in this; is this a "but for the Marriott's..." or is this just the already convicted video taker?

The jury will decide.

My personal opinion is that the Marriott is partially responsible, but their negligence.

If you are interested in reading a good article about the happenings with this witness in the restaurant, follow this link:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/31366114/attorney-for-marriott-ownership-group-says-andrews-video-was-play...

Interesting point to note: Hulk Hogan is currently in court suing Gawker for $100 million for a sex tape (101 second clip, of which he is seen for 9 seconds) being posted in their site.

Information on that here:

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/possible-jurors-called-for-trial-between-hulk-hogan-gawker/

Oh yes, I hope they use this in court.

Don't Change Your Authenticity for Approval

JJsMom · ‎03-10-2010

This whole thing is so sick. I feel so bad for Erin. She is being violated over and over again. You have a screw loose if you seek out the video and find entertainment in it.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. ~ Desmond Tutu

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

@JJsMom wrote:
This whole thing is so sick. I feel so bad for Erin. She is being violated over and over again. You have a screw loose if you seek out the video and find entertainment in it.

...and anyone who defends this guy for doing what he did...is just as guilty as he is, IMO. There is NO justifying such sick behavior.

Nancy Drew · ‎03-11-2010

Okay here goes..... I watched the video. I didn't back when it happened because He was tried and convicted. End of story for me. Now with the trial there was talk of her prancing around. I didn't see that happening. There was an accusation of it being a publicity stunt. Didn't look like that to me. Look liked she was very unaware to me. I mentioned something she did that I thought was unsanitary to her and the next person who used the room after her. I got slammed for that. I probably in hindsight should of kept my mouth shut. It came off insensitive to her but I didn't mean it that way. Now did I mock her body? No. Did I do it public? No. However it surely proved a point of how often it is viewed by people like me and others. Lesson learned as far as that goes.

Wrong is still wrong just because you benefited from it.

brii · ‎06-20-2010

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:
Jurors are given instructions by the judge as to what they can and cannot do.

Yes, they are unsequestered, but that does not mean that the jurors can just do whatever they want.

The judge may have given the jurors specific instructions to NOT look at the video.

Do you want the jurrors to go against what a judge has told them to do/not do?

If they disobey the judge, and the judge finds out about it, it can result in being removed from the jury, or having a mistrial declared.

For example, if someone is sitting on a jury for a murder trial, the judge will give instructions to NOT visit the murder site, even though the jury is not sequestered.

The video in its entirety was played in front of the jury.

ChynnaBlue · ‎05-22-2012

@MaggieMack wrote:
The jurors certainly can hear about it. It's as close as their internet, they are NOT sequestered. If I was an unsequestered juror, I would be browsing.

A juror is NOT supposed to read anything in the news or online about the trial he or she is involved in. If one juror does, that juror can be removed and an alternate put in his/her place. If multiple jurors do OR the one juror who sees the news discusses it with others, that's grounds for a mistrial.

Being sequestered doesn't mean the jurors are allowed to ignore that rule.

When I was on a jury for a rape case, my mom figured out which case it was and saved all of the newspaper articles for me to read when it was over. That was before the smart phones, Google, and social media, which I'm sure make it much more difficult, but the rules are still in place and can cause a mistrial. I took that very seriously as a juror and think it's sad that you would not.

Click here for Forum Tips

SusieQ_2 · ‎03-27-2012

@chrystaltree wrote:
He isn't on the jury and he already tesitifed. Why the heck shouldn't he look at the video if he wanted to? How would that justify that obscene amount of money or any amount of money at all from the hotel? Perhaps I missed it but I still haven't seen any evidence showing that the hotel was responsible for the actions of the pervert or negligent in any way. Actually, considering the case, I would have assumed he would have seen the video before he testified. The jurors won't hear about it.

Am I the only one left shaking my head over that comment?

So here's a guy who represents a company that's in the middle of a trial where they're being sued for negligence and invasion of privacy, and he's seen in public watching the illegal video taken by a convicted felon with his dinner companions, and you see no problem with that?