American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
July 15th, 2011
06:05 AM ET

Question of the Day: Should jurors be able to cash in on their case?

In the wake of the Casey Anthony trial, Florida State Representative Scott Randolph and local defense attorney Mark NeJame are introducing a bill that would make it illegal for a juror to seek or accept compensation for information deriving from their jury service until after 270 days.

The crime would be a third-degree felony punishable by $10,000 and up to five years in prison.

While NeJame claims that the law would assure that the jurors are not biased when deliberating, others have called the bill unconstitutional and overly burdensome.

American Morning wants to know: Should jurors be able to cash in on their case?

Post your response here. Your answer could be included in this morning's broadcast.


Filed under: AM Asks
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Tom R

    Of course they should.

    July 15, 2011 at 7:57 am |
  2. Tlynn

    Absolutely NOT!!! And the Media needs to quit elevating the issue as well.

    July 15, 2011 at 7:54 am |
  3. Roger

    In this day age you want the jury to keep quiet and go on with their lives but it the media and the people wanting more more more scandals about peoples lives making a vibe that make us don't have any values that make us look so bad society.

    July 15, 2011 at 7:44 am |
  4. Charles

    YES As Long as this is still America and we still have something called the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, jurors can say or write anything they want, and profit or not. This is ridiculous that something like this would be even brought up in America, this sounds like something that would happen in North Korea.

    July 15, 2011 at 7:32 am |
  5. ken horton

    i think if the courts stopped allowing cameras in the court room for there own 15 minites of fame then these stories wouldnt get so much attention and free speech is a right so yes jurrors should be able to sell there stories

    July 15, 2011 at 6:50 am |
  6. Stewart

    When a juror is discharged by the Court, what then happens to free speech and enterprise?

    July 15, 2011 at 6:46 am |
  7. tod hale

    No.Just another example of why a "jury of your peers" should be abandoned. This was a good idea 300 years ago. I have graduate degrees in the sciences and have no religious beliefs, will a jury seated for me all have the same? The courtroom has become a stage, the attorneys are actors, witnesses are coached, and jurors can allow personal feelings or religion to sway their vote. This clearly favors a guilty defendent trying to get acquitted. It should be a panel of 7 judges, majority decision is the verdict.

    July 15, 2011 at 6:37 am |
  8. Jim Kulp

    I can see no good reason to prevent this under law. It's America, and everyone else is making a buck on headlines, including the principals. The opportunity is limited to a very small number of cases. Lawmakers should focus on things that matter, such as managing budgets. I'd think that the real reason this came up is so that some lawmaker can make the headlines.

    July 15, 2011 at 6:35 am |
  9. mike sey

    Why not take a page out of other nations' approach? In Canada, for instance, it is illegal for the media to contact jurors and jurors are enjoined not to discuss what went on in the Jury room. Way less sexy but the integrity of the trial is maintained by removing the incentive to seek 15 minutes of fame and protecting jurors from media hounding and threats before, during and after the trial. Jurors enter the trial essentially anonymous, do their job and return to anonymity. I believe the same approach is followed in Britain and other countries which inherited the jury system. Nobody profits except perhaps justice.

    July 15, 2011 at 6:27 am |
  10. Rodney varney

    Absolutely not. Jurors are supposed to be jurors and that's it. When money is involve one thinks that there is ulterior motives.

    July 15, 2011 at 6:13 am |