This AP story by Greg Bluestein is a follow-up to the Supreme Court's famous chocolate genitalia case Wellons v. Hall.
According to the sources in the story, the curiously shaped confection was not a gift from the jury to the judge. Instead, the package was a gift to a juror, Mary Jo Hooper, by an outside friend, with a note, "Just to remind you of what you're missing."
According to the sources in the story, the curiously shaped confection was not a gift from the jury to the judge. Instead, the package was a gift to a juror, Mary Jo Hooper, by an outside friend, with a note, "Just to remind you of what you're missing."
Hooper said she was shocked when she saw it and quickly put the candy away.She said she was later told that Cobb County Superior Court Judge Mary Staley wanted to see it after trial.
After the jurors returned the verdict, Hooper said she quietly pulled the candy from her purse and told the judge to open it after she left the jury room.
"There was never impropriety at all and there was no intent of any wrongdoing," said Hooper, 63. "It was purely a friend's sense of humor."
Staley would not comment on the specifics of the case pending the investigation, but she promptly threw the chocolate away.
Anyhow, the case is remanded to the district court to determine the facts. If they are as reported in the article, the claim should be quickly dismissed. That is not to say it will be, of course.
Interesting. The redo of Banks pretty much vindicated Thomas' dissent in Banks v. Dretke, and in this case, it seems the dissent will be vindicated as well.
There is a lot less than meets the eye, it seems, in a lot of these death cases.