Sidebar Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
What concerns me is this jury had no problems communicating with the judge.....sports events they wanted to watch, pretzels in the jury room, events they did or did not want to attend but when it was time to deliberate they had questions and never asked the judge for clarification. The one time when line of communication to the judge should have been used, they dropped the ball. jmo
 
Public opinion about the jury in the Anthony case seems to have had an impact on the Bob Ward case and it's looking like it will have on the MJ case also.
I think it's important to change laws but I also think the foundation of that is for people to freely express how they feel about a result in a constructive manner. That is - it's fine to complain, but what really counts is to examine what did not work in this case with the jury.

I'm wondering if the 13 pages of jury instructions should and could be broken down into simpler language - in a format that leaves no room for jurors to misunderstand. And that each juror sign a document after a discussion to acknowledge that they do understand the depth of participation they are expected to make. Nothing in that frame indicates sitting like a bump on a log for six weeks wondering what's for lunch, dessert or entertainment that evening would fit into the picture then.

The jury instructions in this trial were very easy to understand, and I have no reason to believe that the jury didn't understand them. Also, as I've mentioned before, most of those pages of jury instructions were 'white space'. The instructions themselves weren't long and were easy to understand; they were written in simpler and more conversational style than many jury instructions I've read.

I think the jury understood them well and any 'questions' they had were for the lawyers about some of their evidence, not about the instructions.
 
I don't know if the answer is jury reform or not. I do know that this jury reached the wrong verdict. Lots of time, money and effort was spent to ensure justice, and justice was not served. I personally believe there was confusion over the term "reasonable doubt". I wish the prosecutors had spelled out exactly what that means to the jurors before they deliberated.

I've heard pundits on TV say the system worked in the Anthony trial, whether we liked the outcome or not. I do not agree with that statement. The system failed. It has failed before, and it will fail again.
 
What concerns me is this jury had no problems communicating with the judge.....sports events they wanted to watch, pretzels in the jury room, events they did or did not want to attend but when it was time to deliberate they had questions and never asked the judge for clarification. The one time when line of communication to the judge should have been used, they dropped the ball. jmo

Seems to me that a decent juror would not be dreaming of delicious foods during a tragic trial. They'd just eat food that they are given (they do have variety) for fuel/nourishment and get on with their duties. The jurors had to look at our little Caylee's body thrown out in the woods and they have appetites after that? Good lord.
 
I understand that when people say the jurors were stupid, thats a generalization of the jurors actions and comments. Given the small amount of evidence we have as to why they came back with a NG verdict, it's a good word..I've said it myself. My point is, we have only heard from two. Everyone is pointing the finger at them as the main reason FCA walked..and it is, but that to me is like saying the only reason I'm here is because my mother carried me for 9 months! There's alot more to the story than that!
I believe everyone from JP , JA , the jurors , the A's, JB , FCA herself being #1... to the person who wrote the jury instructions are responsible for where we are today.
The fact that the jurors are taking the blame is why we will never hear any of the rest of the story. The other 10 could be so afraid to speak or something went on in there that we don't know yet or they could be ashamed because they followed like sheep. They had been locked up like prisoners, well fed prisoners, missing their familys. Let someone lock you up, away from the people you love for 3 weeks and I bet you get excited at breaks and lunch also...they were bored, tired, homesick. Did sequestration lead to a sheep like mentality? Was it so easy to break these people down by sequestration...we don't know what the affects are because I never heard a report from the media about it...
Have you ever made a decision in your life that you now look back on and say...was I nuts!...Why did I do that?
 
Seems to me that a decent juror would not be dreaming of delicious foods during a tragic trial. They'd just eat food that they are given (they do have variety) for fuel/nourishment and get on with their duties. The jurors had to look at our little Caylee's body thrown out in the woods and they have appetites after that? Good lord.

And a special dessert.
 
Public opinion about the jury in the Anthony case seems to have had an impact on the Bob Ward case and it's looking like it will have on the MJ case also.
I think it's important to change laws but I also think the foundation of that is for people to freely express how they feel about a result in a constructive manner. That is - it's fine to complain, but what really counts is to examine what did not work in this case with the jury.

I'm wondering if the 13 pages of jury instructions should and could be broken down into simpler language - in a format that leaves no room for jurors to misunderstand. And that each juror sign a document after a discussion to acknowledge that they do understand the depth of participation they are expected to make. Nothing in that frame indicates sitting like a bump on a log for six weeks wondering what's for lunch, dessert or entertainment that evening would fit into the picture then.


You really are hittin on all cylinders today...Great Post!....:rocker:
 
What concerns me is this jury had no problems communicating with the judge.....sports events they wanted to watch, pretzels in the jury room, events they did or did not want to attend but when it was time to deliberate they had questions and never asked the judge for clarification. The one time when line of communication to the judge should have been used, they dropped the ball. jmo


So that kind of proves that the jurors weren't intimidated by JP...I can tell you courtrooms make me sweat..I don't know why because I love all the beautiful wood but I get really scared, maybe because the only time I was in one was my divorce.
I can also say...I LOVE food...If I was locked up for 3 weeks without my kids and dogs..food would be the next thing on my list to get excited about..comfort for me!
Maybe...this is why they did?

Maybe...sequestration is not such a good thing?
 
I don't know if the answer is jury reform or not. I do know that this jury reached the wrong verdict. Lots of time, money and effort was spent to ensure justice, and justice was not served. I personally believe there was confusion over the term "reasonable doubt". I wish the prosecutors had spelled out exactly what that means to the jurors before they deliberated.

I've heard pundits on TV say the system worked in the Anthony trial, whether we liked the outcome or not. I do not agree with that statement. The system failed. It has failed before, and it will fail again.

I think most people have common sense. There were just a lot of things wrong leading up to this trial. The rush to seat a jury, the budget problems, SA kept their witness list short when the jury wanted to hear more, etc. It just goes on and on. I don't think it's reform we need. We just need to know that the jury understands exactly what they are suppose to do in terms of deliberating. They are suppose to go over the evidence and 6 weeks worth is a lot and use their common sense. This jury appears to have voted on gut feelings and their ability to judge people when all the while KC is sitting there making "cow eyes" at one of the jurors.

KC argues with JB about him having the "bigger" chair during jury selection but pumped her chair down to the basement before the jury arrived everyday. So KC "played" the jury. Wonder how they feel about that now? jmo
 
I don't know if the answer is jury reform or not. I do know that this jury reached the wrong verdict. Lots of time, money and effort was spent to ensure justice, and justice was not served. I personally believe there was confusion over the term "reasonable doubt". I wish the prosecutors had spelled out exactly what that means to the jurors before they deliberated.

I've heard pundits on TV say the system worked in the Anthony trial, whether we liked the outcome or not. I do not agree with that statement. The system failed. It has failed before, and it will fail again.

I think the jurors did not understand the forensic evidence. The gathering of evidence regarding the decomp smell and the testing of that evidence was all very important to placing the body in the car trunk. Death band on hairs was also important. I thought those who testified on these matters were very thorough and when combined with the circumstantial evidence of Caylee last seen with Casey and the 31 days of not reporting her missing, all the necessary "dots" had been connected. The jury, apparently, was at a loss to comprehend any of it.

Further, Juror No. 3 claimed she was not going to vote in any way that might bring the death penalty into play unless she knew the exact place Caylee died, the exact time she died, and the exact manner in which she died. Juror No. 3 stated she was "lost" on the evidence about smell and decomp and hair analysis.

During deliberations, any juror not understanding something should have voiced that, and the foreman should then have requested clarification on those issues. Clearly that didn't happen here and, IMO, even if jurors did express any misunderstanding, the foreman likely just assured them that it was not relevant and that jury duty was all about "reading people."
 
I don't know if the answer is jury reform or not. I do know that this jury reached the wrong verdict. Lots of time, money and effort was spent to ensure justice, and justice was not served. I personally believe there was confusion over the term "reasonable doubt". I wish the prosecutors had spelled out exactly what that means to the jurors before they deliberated.

I've heard pundits on TV say the system worked in the Anthony trial, whether we liked the outcome or not. I do not agree with that statement. The system failed. It has failed before, and it will fail again.



And maybe thats why we are here debating....:twocents:
 
If the jurors understood the lengthy instructions they would not have reached a verdict of NG for a mother who did not protect her child and IMO caused the death of Caylee. Difficult to refer to OCA as a mother.
 
Well..... I've been biting my tongue mostly because I could write a dissertation on why I believe the jury got it wrong and whether or not we need reform.... But, why bother? It's been hashed and rehashed so many times by smarter people than me.......I'm going to keep it simple and piggy back on logicgirl, I really think we would have had a guilty verdict on some level had the court system have a built-in reinforcement of understanding the rules by which one should play...... Reading the instructions in open court is fine. I think after that they should retire for much needed 1/2 hour break and sit down in private and rehash every part of the instructions with the judge followed by a Q and A.......
 
I think the jurors did not understand the forensic evidence. The gathering of evidence regarding the decomp smell and the testing of that evidence was all very important to placing the body in the car trunk. Death band on hairs was also important. I thought those who testified on these matters were very thorough and when combined with the circumstantial evidence of Caylee last seen with Casey and the 31 days of not reporting her missing, all the necessary "dots" had been connected. The jury, apparently, was at a loss to comprehend any of it.

Further, Juror No. 3 claimed she was not going to vote in any way that might bring the death penalty into play unless she knew the exact place Caylee died, the exact time she died, and the exact manner in which she died. Juror No. 3 stated she was "lost" on the evidence about smell and decomp and hair analysis.

During deliberations, any juror not understanding something should have voiced that, and the foreman should then have requested clarification on those issues. Clearly that didn't happen here and, IMO, even if jurors did express any misunderstanding, the foreman likely just assured them that it was not relevant and that jury duty was all about "reading people."


My impression from what little we've heard from this jury is that they did understand the evidence itself; they just didn't see that it led from Point A to Point B.

And if there was something about the evidence that one or more jurors didn't understand, that's the prosecution's problem/fault as well. No judge is going to explain evidence to a jury. They can't. If the jury had come in with a question about evidence, the judge would have simply told them that he can't guide their deliberations in any way or offer that kind of assistance.

I think there's some confusion about that.
 
I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that during the trial, the TH's, JC, and others were claiming the jurors were riveted to their seats every time JA was examining witnesses, and slumped back and not paying attention when the defense was examining witnesses. They were also saying the jurors were taking lots of notes when JA was speaking except for juror #4 who only took notes when JB was talking. I read tweets from roughly 20 different tweeters who saw the skull photos/duct tape unblurred, and the tweets did not agree with each other as far as what they thought they were seeing. In other words, we can look at the same thing, and still see it entirely different than the person sitting right next to us. JC is just going to say what she thinks will garner her the most praise from her adoring public. It is very popular to criticize anything KC, KC's dt, or KC's jury, so, I would expect all juries in the near future, who come to a guilty verdict, did what KC's jury did not, and all juries who come to a not guilty verdict, must have relatives in Pinellas county.


As always, my entire post is my opinion only.


BBM. Yes, that was my recollection as well. :waitasec:
 
So that kind of proves that the jurors weren't intimidated by JP...I can tell you courtrooms make me sweat..I don't know why because I love all the beautiful wood but I get really scared, maybe because the only time I was in one was my divorce.
I can also say...I LOVE food...If I was locked up for 3 weeks without my kids and dogs..food would be the next thing on my list to get excited about..comfort for me!
Maybe...this is why they did?

Maybe...sequestration is not such a good thing?

I think you are right about the sequestration. Maybe they picked the jury backwards. Maybe they should have started in Orlando to see if a jury could be put together. This was all over national news and if you are interested you will find it. I was in Orlando a number of times during these three years and no one seemed to be interested in what was going on at the time.

When I served on a jury the judge could not have been nicer. He did, however, tell us that if we had questions we needed to bring them to his attention by writing a note and giving it to the bailiff which he would read in court and then answer the question. I think JP would have been easy to talk to even if you had a private question.

A friend of mine was on a jury where one of the jurors admitted he lied during vior dire on a question. Being a paralegal and knowing it had to be reported, she asked to see the judge privately. The judge assured her she did the right thing and the person was removed. No one else came forward because they did not realize this person could have caused a big problem. jmo
 
I think most people have common sense. There were just a lot of things wrong leading up to this trial. The rush to seat a jury, the budget problems, SA kept their witness list short when the jury wanted to hear more, etc. It just goes on and on. I don't think it's reform we need. We just need to know that the jury understands exactly what they are suppose to do in terms of deliberating. They are suppose to go over the evidence and 6 weeks worth is a lot and use their common sense. This jury appears to have voted on gut feelings and their ability to judge people when all the while KC is sitting there making "cow eyes" at one of the jurors.

KC argues with JB about him having the "bigger" chair during jury selection but pumped her chair down to the basement before the jury arrived everyday. So KC "played" the jury. Wonder how they feel about that now? jmo



We know JB played all the little trick cards during the trial, what he also did was to put an imagine in the jurors minds that muddied the water for the jurors. They now had to imagine the pretty little mother..sitting RIGHT in front of them...with her fathers, you know what..in her mouth!
JB knew he had to prove this during the trial and the only one besides GA was FCA that could testify. I have heard so many lawyers say, if I'm going to put my client on the stand, I'm going to practice ..pratice and practice some more..Did we see JB visiting FCA...before the trial...to prepare her for cross-examination?
 
Well..... I've been biting my tongue mostly because I could write a dissertation on why I believe the jury got it wrong and whether or not we need reform.... But, why bother? It's been hashed and rehashed so many times by smarter people than me.......I'm going to keep it simple and piggy back on logicgirl, I really think we would have had a guilty verdict on some level had the court system have a built-in reinforcement of understanding the rules by which one should play...... Reading the instructions in open court is fine. I think after that they should retire for much needed 1/2 hour break and sit down in private and rehash every part of the instructions with the judge followed by a Q and A.......

And just to follow that up: No, the prosectution wasn't perfect. But for a jury to aquit on all levels they either had to be stupid, corrupt, or totally confused. A reasonable, average human being could simply have not came back with NG on all counts. I'm sorry for those out there defending this jury saying the state didn't prove their case. They did. That's why the world went cattywonkers and still is over the verdict....:rocker:
 
Hey, Conrad Murray's attorney has a J-Pad!

ETA:

@LGLuvsJ5
Lori Golden
Oh no he DIDN'T pull out the Jose Baez pre school easel and paper! Chernoff that is so Bootleg. Tacky tacky. Can't nobody see that mess!
 
My impression from what little we've heard from this jury is that they did understand the evidence itself; they just didn't see that it led from Point A to Point B.

And if there was something about the evidence that one or more jurors didn't understand, that's the prosecution's problem/fault as well. No judge is going to explain evidence to a jury. They can't. If the jury had come in with a question about evidence, the judge would have simply told them that he can't guide their deliberations in any way or offer that kind of assistance.I think there's some confusion about that.

That is not true. I was on a jury and we had a question and that question was answered by the judge when we were called back into the courtroom and the judge read the question to the court. It would depend on the question but what the juror's here claim were questions regarding the penalty stage and the judge would have answered their questions because obviously they did not understand the jury instructions. How can you deliberate when you don't understand how you are suppose to do so? This was a big problem for this jury. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
52
Guests online
4,251
Total visitors
4,303

Forum statistics

Threads
592,549
Messages
17,970,871
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top