<b>Invalidating the jury</b>
EDITOR: Paul Gullixson's May 4 column ("A verdict that just raises more questions") regarding Efren Carrillo is both fascinating and disturbing. Gullixson wasn't in court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, nor did he consider the instructions read by the judge and apply them to the facts, nor did he deliberate with other jurors. Of course, all of this is necessary to reach a lawful verdict.
Gullixson is obviously quite disturbed by the outcome. His column demonstrates his bias and ignorance. While Gullixson professes to have "great respect" for the jury process, his column demonstrates just the opposite — he invalidates the jury's decision, which I find quite disturbing.
What I find fascinating is that Gullixson's hit piece is a perfect example of attorney Chris Andrian's opinion about picking a jury: "Women jurors are more reflective while men are more judgmental" ("Juror: Carrillo testimony key to acquittal," April 30).
If anyone disagrees, just compare Gullixson's words with those of Catherine Bartholomei and Anysia Fritz in Sunday's paper ("Putting the trials of Efren Carrillo in perspective," Close to Home).
One thing is certain, call me judgmental, but I would never select Gullixson to sit on any jury. Perhaps I should be more forgiving. After all, he's only a man.
STEPHEN M. GALLENSON
Andrian & Gallenson