Jury Decision Making Philosophy... Independence to 1900,

versus the Jury's Role in Contemporary America

OUR FOUNDERS TILL 1900

It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. 

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.

Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

You must not substitute your concept of what the law should be for what I tell you the law is. Just as you alone determine the facts, I alone determine the law, and you are duty bound to accept the law as I state it.

"The question is not whether the INS showed poor or erroneous judgment in terminating plaintiff. You are not to second-guess or judge the wisdom of the INS's actions. An employer is entitled to make an employment decision for a good reason, a bad reason, or for no reason at all, so long as the decision is not motivated by unlawful discrimination.  It is not enough for you to disbelieve the INS's explanations for its actions. The fact that the proffered reason was false does not necessarily mean that the true motive was the illegal one argued by the plaintiff." (judge Shira Scheindlin's charge to the jury Pages 23-24 below)

Note: For some inexplicable reason Judge Scheindlin refused to allow documented evidence of rampant terrorist friendly corruption that Caryl Leventhal was attempting to stop.  Ms. Leventhal was a whistleblower attempting to stop the corruption that was allowing thousands of criminals and potential terrorists into America. 

Many in INS Section 245 where she worked were subsequently arrested for this profitable trade in selling green cards, to say nothing of processing applications for residency without proper background checks.  Prior to her termination, Caryl Leventhal met with agents from the US Department of Justice who had come from Washington DC.  It was here that she explained what was going on.  In 1998, all of Ms. Leventhal's allegations were supported by newspaper articles in an expose where many were arrested.  Unwillingly, it was supported in the deposition of the US Attorney's main witness, Brenda Grant.

The basis of discrimination for Whistleblowing is not considered unlawful discrimination in this type of suit.  But this type of litigation is the only one allowable because the government sets the rules when filing against them.  On the other hand, work environment IS relevant, particularly one laced with the subsequently confirmed criminal and "terrorist friendly" activity Ms. Leventhal was attempting to stop.

Caryl always contended that she was harassed and brutalized in order to shut her up, force her out  and replace her. She was different ethnically and had a physical vulnerability that could be exploited.  She was a whistleblower and a threat.  But none of this very relevant testimony and substantiated documentation was allowed in testimony.

Sadly, the American people will probably pay for the actions and attitudes of the US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, US Attorney's Office and judge Scheindlin.  They will pay for it by increased domestic crime and possible terrorism against the American people. 

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Why did judge Shira Scheindlin keep from the jury and court record, evidence and testimony of the rampant terrorist friendly corruption Caryl Leventhal was attempting to stop (You can find it by going to the Sworn Deposition of Brenda Grant).

Why did Judge Shira Scheindlin refuse to allow Caryl Leventhal a short time to secure a new attorney when the one she had was issued a letter of admonition by the courts on September 26, 2000 (the day he was to represent Caryl Leventhal in court concerning her complaint against the US Department of Justice) "for conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer."  (On January 6, 2004, Caryl's former lawyer will be suspended from practicing law under charges of "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.")

Why did Eric B. Fisher, Deputy US Attorney place winning a case over information from this whistleblower that could warn the American people of terrorism?  Why did Alan R. Kaufman, Chief of the US Attorney's (Southern District) Criminal Division threaten The Leventhal family with arrest and prosecution if they didn't censor this website to place the US Department of Justice in a better light?  Why are they working to place America at risk?

Information unknown to Jury: 

Caryl Leventhal is forced to testify in abject terror of retaliation by the US Attorney's Office Criminal Division.  On September 22, 2000 (Friday), the US Attorney attempts to rig trial by intimidating witness and plaintiff: Michael Bressler, attorney for plaintiff (Caryl Leventhal) is contacted by a Mr. Kaufman.  He identifies himself as "Head of the US Attorney's Office CRIMINAL Division.  Mr. Kaufman asks Mr. Bressler to deliver a message to Michael Leventhal (Caryl Leventhal's husband and a primary witness).  Among other things, Mr. Kaufman claims that the Criminal Division is watching www.Justice-Denied.net; Mr. Leventhal (and therefore the plaintiff and publisher of this website, Caryl Leventhal) is skirting the fringes of his [their] First Amendment rights; they [USDOJ] have conducted a check and know he [Mr. Leventhal] owns [legal] firearms and identified one or two.  This latter information is important because it means that confidential FBI files have been illegally accessed to determine the extent of Mr. Leventhal's legally registered firearms.  Essentially, the US Attorney's Office CRIMINAL Division attempts to censor a website containing no threatening statements whatever, and influence the Leventhal's testimony through intimidation.  It should also be noted that through pre-trial motions, the recorded anti-Semitic death threat is kept from the jury.

Given these statements and a prior anti-Semitic and taped death threat that the USDOJ failed to take any action on, Mrs. Leventhal -- a woman disabled with Multiple Sclerosis -- begins the trial in abject terror.  She is fearful for her husband's life.  Mr. Leventhal is infuriated.  Even before the trial begins, free and open testimony in this civil action is tainted through fear of reprisal by the US Attorney's Office, CRIMINAL Division.

The Jury has been denied medical evidence proving Ms. Leventhal's condition when she called in sick. The Jury is denied taped evidence of an anti-Semitic death threat leveled against Caryl Leventhal and her husband. The Jury is denied proof of rampant, on-site criminal activity in INS Section 245.  They are denied knowledge of both Congressional reports and USDOJ reports admitting to this fact.  They are denied knowledge of the hatred felt for Ms. Leventhal because she attempted to stop this activity and why agents of INS used her physical vulnerability to force her out.

In modern America, the philosophy of a jury to temper law with other factors has been severely diminished.  In many ways, a jury's responsibility has been reduced to the point of placing pegs in predefined holes. A modern jury's decision is based on testimony, evidence and how this information fits into the law as defined by a judge.  If they waver from this, their decision can be nullified.

That Caryl Leventhal was horribly mistreated had been proven by evidence testimony of Brenda Grant, Ms. Leventhal's manager.  Brenda Grant was Caryl's villain and tormentor.  After about fifteen minutes of cross examination, Ms. Grant's mask came off and she became very open about her treatment of Caryl.  There were no doubts that acts were willful and frequent.

That the final approval to terminate Ms. Leventhal was based on withheld information of her illness was confirmed by testimony of Edward McElroy, District Director, INS. 

1.    Reasonable Accommodation: In order to find for Caryl on her claim of failure to provide "Reasonable Accommodation," (under the Rehabilitation Act) for her disability (Multiple Sclerosis), plaintiff must prove that she "could perform the essential functions of her job position as a Supervisory Applications Clerk, either without any accommodation or with reasonable accommodation.  The weakness here is that if lifting and carrying boxes of heavy files and climbing high shelving to retrieve files (never mentioned in her job description but needed to distribute work) might be felt by the jury to be an "essential function."  Forcing Caryl to perform these acts was admitted.  And a woman with Multiple Sclerosis cannot perform this function without suffering extreme pain and fatigue, which is what happened.  And in doing so, Ms. Leventhal's ability to perform other essential functions to her normally high ability (prior to INS) was reduced.  In addition, Brenda Grant admitted in her testimony that she frequently and publicly humiliated Ms. Leventhal in front of her staff.  Thus an environment was created where performing essential functions was inhibited.  And let us not forget that Judge Scheindlin refused to admit evidence of  wide spread on-site criminal behavior (that Caryl was attempting to stop), causing Ms. Leventhal's staff to refuse any help.  With Brenda Grant's prodding, Caryl's staff reveled in using her physical vulnerability to make her suffer.

VERDICT: No liability to INS under this criteria!

2.    Hostile Work Environment: This claim is based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is based on religious discrimination (in this case anti-Semitism).  A hostile work environment was one of Caryl's strong points.  The hostility and sadism within her workplace environment was already proven through testimony and evidence.  But the law is very specific. "Did Caryl Leventhal prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Brenda Grant was callous and cruel to her because of her religion.  The problem here is that while the jury might not have liked Ms. Grant, her motivation for horrible acts (admitted by her in testimony) are not protected by law unless in this case, motivated primarily by anti-Semitic bigotry.

As the judge stated in her Charge to the jury: "The issue is not whether you consider the actions of the INS or any of its employees to have been right or wrong, or fair or unfair.  An employer is entitled to make an employment decision for a good reason, a bad reason or for no reason at all so long as the decision is not motivated by unlawful discrimination."  This means types of discrimination specifically banned by statute.  On the other hand, the jury was kept from hearing key information confirming anti-Semitism on the grounds that it would "prejudice" the jury against USDOJ.  And again... motivating factors causing this white, Jewish woman to be a threatening outsider in an environment of provable criminal activity (written up in the New York Times, Newsday, the New York Post, Congressional reports and even a USDOJ audit) were excluded from the trial.  They were also denied the right to hear a tape recorded death threat to the plaintiff beginning with "You don't know when to give up you f---ing Jew... we're going to get you Nazi Style."  The USDOJ and the US Attorney had this tape recording since April 1998, but did nothing about it other than make a successful motion to exclude it from the trial.

VERDICT: No liability to INS under this criteria!  Brenda Grant could have had many reasons for her actions, including just being cruel.

3.  Wrongful Termination:  Plaintiff must prove that the decision to terminate her was based SOLELY on disability or religious affiliation.  It might be determined that the decision to terminate Ms. Leventhal was motivated by a host of other factors.  The burden of proof is on the plaintiff Caryl Leventhal.  In Edward McElroy's testimony, he stated that Brenda Grant never informed him that Caryl Leventhal was home confirmed ill with Multiple Sclerosis.  He went on to say that Brenda Grant told him Caryl had simply stopped showing up for work.  

During cross examination Brenda Grant admitted to actions leading to a termination that was very out of the norm, including leaving out key information during the decision making process.  If this isn't Wrongful Termination, this writer doesn't know what is.  But again, this must be accompanied by proving these diabolical motivations were caused solely by religion or disability.

VERDICT: No liability to INS under this criteria!  Brenda Grant could have had many reasons for her actions, including just being sadistic.

Does this mean that the jury didn't feel that Caryl Leventhal wasn't treated with extreme cruelty, unfairness, callousness and personal prejudice for "unprotected" reasons?  Absolutely not!  This had been proven by testimony and evidence during the trial.  It's just that she and anyone else for that matter, have no recourse other than to secure another job.  This was a fine jury.  They all returned to the courtroom with grim looks on their faces.  But excluded evidence denied them the right to make a truly objective decision.

Transcript of final words from Judge Shira Scheindlin after jury announced the verdict ... a verdict reached with virtually all hard evidence kept from them.