Eriksson case ends in mistrial; jurors likely bribed with Gizmondos

In yet another sign that maybe this whole "trial by jury" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be, jurors in the grand theft auto case against former Gizmondo Europe director and current jailbird Bo Stefan Eriksson were unable to come to a unanimous decision regarding his guilt or, ahem, innocence, resulting in a mistrial. Although ten members of the Los Angeles panel felt that Eriksson did indeed steal a Ferrari and a Mercedes imported from England, two of the jurors apparently bought the defense's rather lame excuse that the one-time mobster only stopped making payments because his sham of a company finally disintegrated. Luckily for fans of justice and fast cars, prosecutors have already stated that they are planning to retry Eriksson for the same crimes, not to mention the weapons charges that the slippery Swede still has hanging over his head. At this point it's not clear why those two jurors chose to remain so steadfast in their convictions, although it's somewhat telling that they were spotted skipping around the courthouse halls after the trial was over, clutching unsold Gizmondos in one hand and hundreds of shares of nearly worthless Xero Mobile stock in the other.

[Via BoingBoing]

[Charles Beall @ Nov 3rd 2006 6:33PM]

If the jury was bribed with Gizmondo's, it was by the prosecution for a guilty verdict!

[CitrusC @ Nov 3rd 2006 7:23PM]

Wonder if he's going to have a "get out of jail via the hospital wing" option, ala Colors.

[Vanillacide @ Nov 3rd 2006 7:26PM]

Isn't it about time that Americans realise that at least 10% of jurors are idiots, or will never believe defendants did the crime no matter what evidence is presented, and change to majority rather than unanimous verdicts?

[Paul @ Nov 3rd 2006 8:10PM]

No, NO NO, that would not be a good idea.

Imagine you are on the chopping block in this case instead? Being accused of a crime that you did not commit, which would you prefer? That they only need to convince 7 jururs? By your reasoning, there are a number of people are idiots, so, lets say that two of them are idiots, and believe everything the prosecution says... well then, you have only 5 reasonable people that are certain you did it.

If you are convicted, you dont get a second chance, ok, you get appeals, but I dont think the success rate is exactly steller there.

If you are found innocent, again they all have to aggree, then you can not be tried again, and you are free.

However, in a mistrial, its just saying, well we had dumbasses on the jury and our case was not that strong, lets try it again and see if we can find some more compelling evidence.

[John Doe @ Nov 3rd 2006 8:21PM]

Speaking of idiots.

Vanillacide our system was specifically setup to be difficult to convict. Its better to let 100 guilty people free then sentence 1 innocent person for something they didn't do. And there is a reason there is a jury selection process. Its a way to weed out the idiots. At that time if the defendant's lawyer has issues with the people in the pool he or she can voice them. Fucking lean our system before you go criticizing it. Or would you rather have a wheel of fortune type justice system. Come on death sentence come on come on!! Ahhh crap. He only got 5 years.

Moron.

[FrankDaCrank @ Nov 3rd 2006 7:29PM]

I don't know what it is about this guy, but I just want to smack him in the face with a box full of Gizmondo's.

[BORAT @ Nov 3rd 2006 7:51PM]

He is what they call in my country how you say anus lover? yes? he looks like a guy who is into say buying pubes and making hats of out of them..yes? i must go now and make relations with my sister

[Farris @ Nov 3rd 2006 7:54PM]

As much as I hate to admit it (and believe me, I do), I agree with Vanillacide. There are always going to be people in this country that will go against the majority, whether it's a guilty or innocent verdict.

I'm not sure if it would be wise to go to a majority-vote in the courtroom, but still. The fact that one person, who perhaps is a little bit too... I can't think of an adjective to describe it, can set a guilty man free (not to pass judgement on Eriksson), is a little disturbing.

[bazald @ Nov 3rd 2006 8:11PM]

Vanillacide, Farris: Something isn't so merely because the majority believes it to be so. You won't be happy when you're accused of something and the 1-2 intelligent jurors believe you, but the majority decides that you are guilty.

You seem to be in favor of removing one of the few remaining safeguards of our freedom in this country... Rather than allowing countless innocent people be unfairly convicted, I'd much rather the system be biased to allow some guilty people to avoid conviction.

[Andy @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:35PM]

The truth is not democratic. Something that many people should understand. What the majority believes is almost always wrong (given this majority are normal people, not specialists in the area to be scrutinized--i.e. scientists, etc.). When you reduce the total of people to 12 this effect may be minimized, but there is still a good chance that some of the majority are being influenced by this.
This is also something that religious people should understand. The truth is not democratic.

[John Doe @ Nov 3rd 2006 9:11PM]

Seriously though. This thread proves why our school system needs better civics\government classes. The staggering stupidity put forth here proves that most of the children that inhabit this site not only are immature with their dumbass comments, but don't have the faintest clue what the hell they are talking about.

[Vanillacide @ Nov 4th 2006 4:15AM]

I believe the American system was setup based on the English justice system.

The English courts abandonded unanimous verdicts quite a while ago specifically because of this problem, some jurors who would never convict despite overwhelming evidence, and now accept majority verdicts (e.g. 10-2).

[Andy @ Nov 4th 2006 7:29AM]

Then perhaps trial by jury is not the best way to go, considering how the great majority of regular, untrained people aren't capable of being competent enough. If I was on trial, I'd say give me a couple of judges, or maybe better, get competent scientists as my jurors.

[beanspants @ Nov 4th 2006 1:44PM]

I wouldn't have voted guilty for car theft either.
From this site: http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/

FACT:
It appears Mr Eriksson may have destroyed a car which didn't belong to him. Police said the car was the property of the Bank of Scotland and was in the process of being repossessed at the time of the crash.
________________________________
The car was being repossessed, but he did obtain it in a relatively legal manner, ie he didn't break in and steal the keys. not being able to pay for a car is a civil contract matter, not a criminal matter. Otherwise, every person whose car is repossed would be considered a car thief. simply the fact that the car came to the US doesn't make that much difference. again, if you were behind on your payments, and drove your car to Canada, would simply crossing the border make you guilty of theft? No.
He also apparently didn't alter the VIN or anything else that someone stealing a car would have done.

NOT KNOWN TO BE A FACT:
The word on the street is the Ferrari was obtained through fraudulent financing along with a Mercedes SLR.
________________________________________________
if this were true, then they probably could have gotten a conviction. it apparently was not 100% true. also, if it were true, that would lead to a separate charge, ie, even if they didn't find him guilty of theft, they could still find him guilty of several counts of fraud.

So, yeah, it sucks that he crashed a nice car, but he didn't steal it.