It’s not that often that a JURY protests a legal decision, but the jurors in the Michael George trial seem to want his head on a pike, as they protested with actual signs and everything.

It’s extremely rare for a judge to order a new trial after a jury has reached a verdict. The prosecution plans to file an appeal with the state Court of Appeals within the next two weeks.

“I think it’s a travesty,” said jury foreman Garry Kuzinskoski, a 45-year-old sales engineer.

“We went through every piece of evidence,” added juror Madette Bui, 39, a registered nurse. “Everybody agreed on first-degree murder. We knew exactly why we were deciding it.”


  1. Whether the jury made the right decision or not means nothing at this time. Some of the evidence was misplaced. It has been found. A new trial is a necessity in order to assure a fair result.

    If the jurors from that trial don’t understand this, then maybe they weren’t qualified to be jurors in the first place.

  2. “If the jurors from that trial don’t understand this, then maybe they weren’t qualified to be jurors in the first place.”

    Truer words have never been spoken.

    What’s the old joke? Your fate is being decided by people so stupid they couldn’t get out of jury duty?

  3. Part of our job, as responsible citizens, is to NOT get out of jury duty, and though I agree with the first decision, I think they really need to stay out of any further actions taken in this case.

  4. I don’t blame them for being pissed off. They did everything asked of them. If Judge Biernat honestly thought the case was too flimsy for a reasonable jury to find George guilty, he should have thrown the case out before he asked a jury to consider the case. The defense team asked on two separate occasions for Judge Biernat to throw the case out because they argued the prosecutor failed to prove his case . He refused to do so both times. Now he says the case was too flimsy? This makes me wonder just how many times he watched the 2-hour NBC Dateline story on this case.

    This new evidence does nothing to clear Michael George. The fact that Marshall Prog showed up in town flat broke a few days before the murder and then left town a few days after the murder flush with cash proves nothing. The prosecutor already proved that it was not a botched robbery. Not only was no money taken from the two registers, Barbara had all of her jewelry when they found her. We are supposed to believe a junkie is going to kill a woman and then leave money in the registers and jewelry on the victim, but take high valued golden age comics that nobody remembers ever seeing? How would Marshall Prog even know which comics were valuable and which ones weren’t? Where would he go to quickly sell them?

    At most, it could be argued that Marshall Prog was involved in a murder-for-hire scheme. That someone paid him to murder Barbara George. I don’t see how that would clear Michael George.

Comments are closed.