Pages

Saturday, May 14, 2011

James Norman trial jury returns guilty verdict.

Post verdict press statement.

Norman says he will appeal. Photo from this Albert Lea Tribune report.

This shorter KAAL TV report includes an embedded video of Norman's press statement.

Reader comments accompanying the Tribune article are few, but express discontent over the verdict, in light of claims about other city staff credit card usage patterns.

This Google, for more links.

Tribune commenter contentions probably relate to this report about testimony that was excluded from the jury, but with the debate over it heard in open court in the jury's absence.

Presumably being denied presenting impeachment testimony from and against the main witness against him, about alleged bias and hostility as cause for the jury to possibly doubt witness veracity, will be Norman's main basis for appeal.

On appeal, the reviewing appellate panel could say the judge acted properly, that it was an imporper decision but harmless error in that it would likely have not altered the verdict in light of testimony that was allowed; or the panel might hold it material error and order a new trial as a remedy for Norman.

Testimony the judge allowed - that Moen, the primary witness for the prosecution, had also laxly used credit cards in the past, also likely will be argued on appeal by Norman as defining a standard of care and conduct within the city entirely inconsistent with his being charged for how he acted, and that despite the verdict the matter should never have gone to trial or to the jury. See here for detail on that. Presumably there was a pretrial hearing where the challenge was raised, and there perhaps will be post-verdict motions to the trial judge before there is any appeal filed.

____________UPDATE____________
Further coverage from Friday: Norman through counsel moved for the judge to direct a verdict of acquittal, in effect taking the case from the jury, here. Instead the case went to the jury at about 3:20 pm, Friday, as reported here, so that deliberation in reaching a verdict was prompt enough that the trial ended, not running into next week.