I read Colin Rigley’s article in the Oct. 22 edition, “From juror box to witness stand,” and can’t explain how disillusioned I feel that a juror in a San Luis Obispo court could be pressured by a judge and other jurors to vote the opposite way of the conclusion the juror had reached after listing to hours of testimony.
I am wondering how the jury was picked, if one or more jurors truly said they had inside information on Mr. DeVaul: Was this disclosed before they agreed to be jurors?
Why would the judge single out any juror and question them about their conclusion because he did not want a mistrial: Is that justice in America; innocent until proven guilty—or guilty because I think you are?
How much has this case cost the taxpayers and how much more will we be paying before this long-running disagreement between DeVaul and code enforcement is resolved?
A new trial is indeed in order but better still as a taxpayer, if it could be settled out of court it would be a win-win situation for everyone
-- Betty Woody - Avila Beach