Lawyer Juror Helped Persuade Reporter to Convict Uma Thurman's Stalker
Wall Street Journal reporter Emily Steel served as a juror in the trial of drifter Jack Jordan, accused of stalking and harassing actress Uma Thurman. Writing about her experience, Steel says she decided to convict Jordan of stalking after hearing an argument advanced by a fellow juror who is a lawyer.
Jurors in the New York trial deliberated for about seven hours spread over Monday and Tuesday as they weighed in on this question: What is the line between obsession and menace? Steel writes in the Wall Street Journal that jurors deciding the question concluded Jordan had acted criminally in regards to two charges: stalking and aggravated harassment.
Jurors spent a lot of time discussing two incidents. In one, Jordan showed up on the set of a movie Thurman was filming in November 2005 to deliver a “creepy” package of letters to her trailer. They showed a stick figure walking toward an open grave and a bride with her head cut off. Another talked of Jordan’s love for Thurman, but most of the words were crossed out. The remaining words included “mouth,” “kissing” and “my hands should be on your body at all times.”
In another incident in August 2007, Jordan had visited Thurman’s home, ringing her doorbell “nonstop” and delivering another letter that said he would kill himself if he saw her with another man. It also told her she had permission to spy on him.
Steel thought the letters delivered to the movie set indicated Jordan was “a lovesick individual” who was trying to prove his affection for Thurman. Another juror said Jordan, who had a degree in English literature from the University of Chicago, was smart and manipulative. A different juror compared him to a little boy who pulls the ponytail of a girl to get her attention. Even though he likes her, his intent is to annoy her.
In the end, jurors’ misgivings led them to acquit Jordan of an aggravated harassment charge for the movie trailer incident. But jurors decided Jordan’s later actions at her home were enough to convict him for aggravated harassment.
As jurors deliberated the stalking charge, they returned to the question of whether Jordan’s actions had a legitimate purpose, other than to harass Thurman. Steel was worried about another issue. Could jurors convict Jordan if he didn’t stalk Thurman for the entire period mentioned in the charge, from May 2005 to August 2007?
A lawyer on the jury said Jordan’s behavior shouldn’t be interpreted in a vacuum. Each of his actions, from the letters delivered to the movie set to those pushed through her mail slot at her home, should be interpreted as one criminal act.
The lawyer’s argument helped persuade Steel she could vote to convict Jordan of stalking.
