impartial = biased??? 
Posted: 02 April 2013 01:26 PM   [ Ignore ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2853
Joined  2007-01-31

I’d been hearing this repeatedly this morning on CNN, but now I’ve also found it in print at abc.go.com:

The woman, identified only as Juror 5, allegedly made statements to other jurors during a closed meeting that showed she was an impartial jury member, according to a motion filed by Kirk Nurmi, Arias’ lead attorney.

It makes me wonder if the solecism occurs in the defense filing, and is being blindly copied by idiotic journalists, or if there’s been a fresh mass outbreak of illiteracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2344
Joined  2007-01-30

According to Radar Online:

The axing came in light of Monday’s complaint from Arias’ lead attorney, Kirk Nurmi, who asked that the female juror be removed, claiming that: “statements Juror 5 made in front of her fellow jurors amounts to misconduct that inserted partiality in what is supposed to be an impartial body.”

If they’ve reported Nurmi accurately then it seems the screwup came when some agency reporter attempted to summarize the statement and others blindly picked it up. How anyone could miss it though is beyond me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2853
Joined  2007-01-31

I think you are right.  I had wondered if it was a Freudian slip on the part of the attorney; the last thing the defense wants in a case like this one is an impartial juror.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  359
Joined  2012-01-10

Between the rush to print (to beat out not only other journalists, but bloggers, twitterers and facebookers as well) and a process akin to a bad game of telephone, I can (barely) imagine the defense attorney’s complaint about a juror’s comments showing that the jury did not behave as an impartial body should being distorted into a complaint that the juror was impartial.  Perhaps they were in such a rush that they didn’t notice the oddness of a report of defense attorney complaining (officially, at least) that the jury that convicted his client was impartial, or maybe they thought it was bizarre, but then decided, “Well, it may not make any sense, but that’s what he reportedly said, and if he reportedly said it, then it’s news.”

I haven’t, personally, noticed a trend of people increasingly taking “impartial” to mean “biased”, so I hope this is a fluke, but who knows?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 05:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  336
Joined  2007-02-13

Edit:  Oh, never mind. Aldi already said pretty much what I was going to say.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2013 11:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3135
Joined  2007-02-26

You can’t expect journalists to read what they write these days, they are very busy. Those nip slip galleries don’t curate themselves.

Profile