Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > Caylee Anthony 2 years old

Notices

Caylee Anthony 2 years old Not reported missing for a month after she was last seen.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-01-2009, 02:56 PM
one_hooah_wife's Avatar
one_hooah_wife one_hooah_wife is offline
Loving Colorado!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,057
6 Jurors versus 12 Jurors ... who will this benefit?

There will only be 6 jurors seated for this case, as it stands, to this date:

Florida Statute 913.10 Number of jurors.
--Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...913/ch0913.htm

Florida typically seats only 6 jurors in a criminal case ... unless the death penalty is "on the table."

Who will, if anyone, this benefit?

Facts:

The US Supreme Court decision in WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) 399 U.S. 78, decided that a jury of 6 or more did not violate the defendants 6th Amendment right to a fair trial.

To have a hung jury, only one juror would have to hold out. That is 1:6 odds versus (if the state had opted for the DP) a 1:12 odds, for KC to have a hung jury. It only takes one!!

Who does this benefit in your opinion?
__________________
Clue: Satsuma Edition

It was the psycho-sicko in the trailer park with a brick-o-block!

"Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations" ~ "inside" motto of the CIA and the entire Anthony family!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't believe she is 4!!


Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to one_hooah_wife For This Useful Post:
  #2  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:08 PM
ks1 ks1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 278
It appears to me that it will benefit the prosecution by only having to convice 6jurors of guilt, rather than 12. The odds of getting one wacko, KC loving jury member are reduced by half!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ks1 For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:31 PM
one_hooah_wife's Avatar
one_hooah_wife one_hooah_wife is offline
Loving Colorado!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,057
Some could look at it as fewer jurors seated ... fewer jurors to convince ... on either side!
__________________
Clue: Satsuma Edition

It was the psycho-sicko in the trailer park with a brick-o-block!

"Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations" ~ "inside" motto of the CIA and the entire Anthony family!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't believe she is 4!!


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:31 PM
dax's Avatar
dax dax is offline
Justice for Caylee
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: close to the beach :)
Posts: 227
We've talked about this on other threads when reference was made to "12 people."

All trials (except dp) in Florida use only 6 jurors so the SA and defense attorney are used to this. In fact, I would say that the majority of SA's and Defense A's here in Florida have never tried a case with 12 jurors.

On one side you can say that there are less people to convince of guilt and on the other side you can say there are less people to influence someone who has doubt. Personally, I don't think either side benefits one way or the other.
__________________
JMO

"I...am not...stopping anymore...for you...to get...a file"

"It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is how they lived." Inscription on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, Washington, DC
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dax For This Useful Post:
  #5  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:31 PM
frenchvixen frenchvixen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 550
This really made my day. Instead of having 12, she will have 6.. this may be the reason why the took the DP off the table. The cards are stacked in the favor of the prosecution b/c it's 6 less folks to worry about.
__________________
"She will be mutha of the year" Rick Anthony's response to Cindy
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:35 PM
marla marla is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by ks1 View Post
It appears to me that it will benefit the prosecution by only having to convice 6jurors of guilt, rather than 12. The odds of getting one wacko, KC loving jury member are reduced by half!

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:37 PM
Friday's Avatar
Friday Friday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,785
I'm amazed there will be only 6 jurrors. I've been here every day since July and never came across this info before. Duh.
__________________
Hawk. My BFF
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Friday For This Useful Post:
  #8  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:50 PM
Manny's Avatar
Manny Manny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 654
Is this only in Florida?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-01-2009, 03:58 PM
one_hooah_wife's Avatar
one_hooah_wife one_hooah_wife is offline
Loving Colorado!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manny View Post
Is this only in Florida?
Well, I have not looked at other state law ... and I am most familiar with TN and AL law .... so I do not know ... keep in mind this is a state's law matter ... for this case ... I Have referenced FL Law only!
__________________
Clue: Satsuma Edition

It was the psycho-sicko in the trailer park with a brick-o-block!

"Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations" ~ "inside" motto of the CIA and the entire Anthony family!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't believe she is 4!!


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Friday's Avatar
Friday Friday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,785
Not to be a kill-joy but if I were the only hold-out against convicting someone, I'd be more willing to yield to the opposing opinion of 11 other people, than I would be willing to yield to the opposing opinion of only 5 others. I'm not implying that I'd been more intimidated if eleven people ganged up on me. Rather, I mean that I'd be more willing to doubt/question my own judgment if 11 people adamantly disagreed with me. If there were only 5 people who saw things the opposite of me, I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, stand firm, and try to bring them around.

Lately, I notice I'm using a lot more words to try to explain myself, but not doing a better job of it. LOL. So, to reduce all the above to one sentence: I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.
__________________
Hawk. My BFF
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Friday For This Useful Post:
  #11  
Old 04-01-2009, 04:38 PM
DotsEyes DotsEyes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In a bubble.
Posts: 2,293
Seems to me that having only 6 jurors benefits the prosecution.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-01-2009, 04:44 PM
Issi Issi is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday View Post

I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.

Certainly one way to look at it and I don't disagree.

I think it works from both angles 50/50....


But...

What if you had two hold outs on a conviction in a group of 12 that you had to convince... or even three?

Cutting the jury down to six, imo, cuts down on deliberation time.

If I were a juror, I would rather deliberate with five other people than a group of twelve. With a smaller group, it's easier to discuss and you have less cross talk... To me, it's simply more focused.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Issi For This Useful Post:
  #13  
Old 04-01-2009, 05:22 PM
natsound's Avatar
natsound natsound is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,506
I don't know if the 6:1 odds versus 12:1 odds works when talking about the chances of one juror holding out. I've long believed 12 people on a jury is too many, because instead of convincing 6 minds, you have to convince 12. We recently had a very important trial of a public official here. It was a mistrial because of 1 juror out of 12.. and this guy is so obviously guilty. Now taxpayers will have to cough up more cash to do it all over again.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to natsound For This Useful Post:
  #14  
Old 04-01-2009, 05:25 PM
Marple Marple is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,021
I have served on a jury of 12 in an other state and also on a jury of 6 in Florida. The jury of 6 was much easier.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Marple For This Useful Post:
  #15  
Old 04-01-2009, 07:02 PM
trixi491 trixi491 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 525
Altho I agree with Friday's comment, I also feel that lowering the number of jurors makes the jury feel more close. I know I would feel much closer with 5 other people I had come to sit with day after day than I would 11. Then during final deliberation to see those 5 other people felt she was guilty, I might be more keen to hearing them out and reconsidering than I would a larger amount of people I felt less of a connection with. That's JMO.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to trixi491 For This Useful Post:
  #16  
Old 04-01-2009, 07:58 PM
NancyT NancyT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Since the defense will be looking for a moron, it would seem to me that finding 1 in 6 would be harder than finding 1 in 12.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to NancyT For This Useful Post:
  #17  
Old 04-01-2009, 08:39 PM
Friday's Avatar
Friday Friday is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Issi View Post
Certainly one way to look at it and I don't disagree.

I think it works from both angles 50/50....


But...

What if you had two hold outs on a conviction in a group of 12 that you had to convince... or even three?

Cutting the jury down to six, imo, cuts down on deliberation time.

If I were a juror, I would rather deliberate with five other people than a group of twelve. With a smaller group, it's easier to discuss and you have less cross talk... To me, it's simply more focused.
I don't disagree at all.
__________________
Hawk. My BFF
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Friday For This Useful Post:
  #18  
Old 04-01-2009, 09:48 PM
panthera's Avatar
panthera panthera is offline
Retired WS Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the prowl
Posts: 25,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday View Post
Not to be a kill-joy but if I were the only hold-out against convicting someone, I'd be more willing to yield to the opposing opinion of 11 other people, than I would be willing to yield to the opposing opinion of only 5 others. I'm not implying that I'd been more intimidated if eleven people ganged up on me. Rather, I mean that I'd be more willing to doubt/question my own judgment if 11 people adamantly disagreed with me. If there were only 5 people who saw things the opposite of me, I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, stand firm, and try to bring them around.

Lately, I notice I'm using a lot more words to try to explain myself, but not doing a better job of it. LOL. So, to reduce all the above to one sentence: I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.
I understand what you're saying, and you bring up a good point.
__________________
Rest in Peace
Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-01-2009, 09:50 PM
panthera's Avatar
panthera panthera is offline
Retired WS Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the prowl
Posts: 25,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotsEyes View Post
Seems to me that having only 6 jurors benefits the prosecution.
I think it all goes back to who is on the jury and not necessarily the number of jurors. Even with only 6, the state still needs to carefully weed out the potential pro-defense ones during voir dire.
__________________
Rest in Peace
Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-01-2009, 11:04 PM
BondJamesBond BondJamesBond is offline
Retired WS Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,906
Good question.

For anyone willing to wade through it, the U.S. Bureau of Justice provides a plethora of statistics here. I didn't see anything on a quick review that would help this discussion, but...it was a quick look.

The best approach I can think of regarding this question would be to ask it in the extremes and see if it makes a difference.

Would a jury of 1 benefit either?
Would a jury of 1,000 benefit either?

I can only give a biased answer, but, IMHO, when there is sufficient evidence to make the case - which I believe we'll see in this one - increasing the jury size has the effect of jury behavior increasingly simulating the behavior of the mass population and finding individuals whose definition of "reasonable" varies widely from the 'norm' and would therefore be willing to hold out for the defense.

So...with no better argument than that...I'd say 6 benefits the SA more than the defense...if ever so slightly. Since the Supreme Court upheld it, perhaps there were some statistics presented @ the time showing no bias 6 vs. 12...maybe.

You may also consider the juror selection process. Are there any benefits one way or the other in the selection process SA vs. defense? Selection...regardless of 6 or 12...is make or break.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BondJamesBond For This Useful Post:
  #21  
Old 04-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Nore's Avatar
Nore Nore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday View Post
I'm amazed there will be only 6 jurrors. I've been here every day since July and never came across this info before. Duh.
---------
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-01-2009, 11:29 PM
MDdetective's Avatar
MDdetective MDdetective is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday View Post
Not to be a kill-joy but if I were the only hold-out against convicting someone, I'd be more willing to yield to the opposing opinion of 11 other people, than I would be willing to yield to the opposing opinion of only 5 others. I'm not implying that I'd been more intimidated if eleven people ganged up on me. Rather, I mean that I'd be more willing to doubt/question my own judgment if 11 people adamantly disagreed with me. If there were only 5 people who saw things the opposite of me, I'd be more inclined to shrug that off, stand firm, and try to bring them around.

Lately, I notice I'm using a lot more words to try to explain myself, but not doing a better job of it. LOL. So, to reduce all the above to one sentence: I'd be more willing to question my own judgment if 11 other people thought I was dead-wrong, than I'd be if only 5 people thought that.
bolded and color by me

that's me everyday after lunch lol...anyways I agree with your whole post
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MDdetective For This Useful Post:
  #23  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:32 AM
Dear Prudence's Avatar
Dear Prudence Dear Prudence is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Bayou City
Posts: 1,984
Wow. I just can not believe a case like this would only have 6 jurors. I live in Texas and have served on civil and criminal juries, both of which consisted of 12 jurors. The criminal case was easy decision on guilt but punishment we bickered. Because ten of them went for max, I think the other two agreed more easily. If only 6 total jurors, I think it would have been harder to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:46 AM
MomofBoys's Avatar
MomofBoys MomofBoys is offline
Future Bucs QB
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,029
Wow, I now feel privileged to have sat on a Florida jury of 12. Heh.

My situation was slightly different as we were selected to serve only during the penalty phase, as the original jury's recommendation was thrown out because of an inappropriate comment made by one of the lawyers.

I thought it was a fairly seamless process, but by not having to determine guilt we merely had to reach a consensus. That's quite a bit easier.

That said, I don't think a smaller jury benefits either side. The voir dire process is the same (as far as I'm aware) and it all has to do with the six (lucky, oh so lucky) selected for this trial. It seems like such a crapshoot. But you WOULD think that it's less likely to find a KC-lovah in a pool of six than of 12, like someone else said.

So the more I think about this, the more I think it helps the prosecution. Maybe it's because I desperately want to believe that, but it only takes one to hang a jury, but you have to have a unaminous decision to convict. Easier to convince six, and whether you have a pool of six or 12, you can still have a holdout.

So yeah. How's that for stream of consciousness?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-02-2009, 02:35 AM
Marina2's Avatar
Marina2 Marina2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 2,256
The way I see it is:
The defense needs only one holdout to have a hung jury. With 6 jurors, they have only 6 chances for a hold out. If there were 12, they would have 12 chances to get that one hold out. I see it like lottery tickets. If I buy 12 I have more chances of winning than if I only buy 6.
For this reason I think it benefits the state to have 6 jurors instead of 12.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The jurors enigma Darlie Routier 0 10-10-2007 06:51 AM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!