Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

After serving, is it wrong for jurors to cash in?

A juror's box.
A juror's box.
rscottjones/Flickr (cc by-nc-nd)

Listen to story

Download this story 14MB

On the heels of the Casey Anthony murder trial, a Florida lawmaker wants to limit how much jurors on such trials can profit after the fact. State Senator Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) has introduced a bill that would make it illegal for jurors to sell – or media outlets to buy – their stories within 270 days of serving on a jury. If passed, a violation would be a third-degree felony punishable by $10,000 and up to five years in prison. The Anthony trial, which attracted an unprecedented amount of media attention, also resulted in public outrage over her acquittal. O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark said the verdict was “worse than O.J.” Jurors have since struggled with their acquittal verdict. In an interview with Good Morning America, the jury foreman said he felt an “overwhelming sense that we may have let people down.” He also called reports that Anthony was being offered large sums of money to tell her story, “mortifying.” Would it be equally mortifying for jurors to cash in? Or should they be they be entitled to lucrative speaking engagements and book deals? Would a bill limiting that ever pass constitutional muster?


Mark NeJame, Founder, Senior Partner, NeJame Law based in Orlando, FL

Larry Rosenthal, Professor of Law, Chapman School of Law