« Ind. Gov't. - "Jurors were stunned when the defense didn't call any witnesses in the voter fraud trial of Secretary of State Charlie White" | Main | Vacancy on Supreme Court 2012 - Eight interviews this afternoon »

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Ind. Gov't. - More on: "Jurors were stunned when the defense didn't call any witnesses in the voter fraud trial of Secretary of State Charlie White"

Re the last ILB entry last evening, a reader has written to say to that WRTV's transcipt is at variance with the interview he watched on TV:

I saw the report at 7:00 and it was substantially different from the web version. The foreman was asked if the jury would have acquitted if the ex-wife had taken the stand and said what she said in the recount commission hearing, and my recollection is that he paused, smiled, and said something like "well, it probably would have added three or four more hours to our deliberations because it would have raised and answered some questions, but I don't know that it would have meant an acquittal."
The "transcript" says:
"Most of us felt that if the ex-wife would have testified, or the new husband had said, 'Yeah, he was living in our basement,' that would have been very telling. It would have been nice to actually hear from the new wife, too," he said.

When asked if he believed the jury would have acquitted White based on such testimony, Weidman said, "I feel we probably would have."

So I just watched the video that is available online, and have a third version -- about 1:23 into the video, the juror says instead, when asked if testimony would have made a difference, and noting it would have added 3 or 4 hours to the deliberations: "It would have made his case a lot stronger."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 8, 2012 08:30 AM
Posted to Indiana Government