Glutton for Punishment . . .

So, Juror #17 is not happy. He is not happy at all. Juror #17 is the one who requested to be excused from the Brian Nichols trial just before it was set to begin. He's the one the Judge made a shadow juror, ordered to sit in the audience gallery every day until the end of the trial.

Today, Juror #17 was upset that he hadn't been receiving is court-paid drink during breaks in the trial. I mean, really? He's also upset that his photo has been shown in the media. Evidently, his friends are making fun of him. Wah. So, for now, no more photos as the Judge ordered photographers to avoid taking his picture. There was some additional back and forth between the Judge and Juror #17 which you can read about over at the AJC.

The defense lost in their attempt to question one of the rape prosecutors (Nichols was on trial for rape when he committed these murders) about her drug use while working at the D.A.'s office. Their theory is that because the D.A. is aware of the drug use that she is beholden to him, thus would be willing to testify more favorably for the prosecution. The Judge denied their motion to strike her testimony, and also refused to allow the defense to question her on the drug use.

The jury has already heard testimony dealing with Nichols' attempts to bring items into the jail during the rape trial. I remember hearing about him having shanks in his shoes. However, one of the former deputies who used to guard him said she was constantly preventing him to bring ink pens into the jail. Evidently, he'd stick them into his Bible during the trial and attempt to take them into the jail. They're contraband because they're considered weapons. Inmates are only given rubber pens to use.

Both the former prosecutor and deputy have testified about Nichols demeanor during the rape trial and have said they thought him lucid and completely cold and calculating. The rape case was a retrial, and supposedly the prosecution was presenting a much stronger case the second time around. The theory is that Nichols realized he was probably going to be convicted and sentenced. The former deputy also testified that she believed Nichols tried to create a mistrial by attempted to place himself within the view of a juror when he was shackled. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Deck v. Missouri prevents the use of physical restraints on a defendant unless that use is justified by an essential state interest, such as courtroom security specific to the defendant. Nichols' former defense attorney brought up the possibility during the rape trial, but the juror denied seeing him.

Here's what bothers me. I have a hard time believing Nichols didn't know exactly what he was doing. During the second rape trial he told the prosecutor she was doing a much better job during the second trial. He repeatedly tried to sneak contraband into the jail. He supposedly attempted to obtain a mistrial by having a juror see him in shackles. The way he executed the murders and his escape from downtown seemed extremely well thought out, and certainly not an instantaneous and lucky occurrence.

We know he committed the crimes, and I believe most people in Atlanta do not think there is an actual issue regarding his mental capacity when this happened. I could be wrong, it's happened before. That's why I do look forward to hearing the defense's case.