Sidebar Discussion

[Aedrys]

Love your post and couldn't have said it better! Sometimes I am forced to ask: Since they had several chances to see that justice was served without condemning her to death, why didn't they? It scares me to think that their wanting to go home might not have been the reason. Meaning, the real reason is something hinky went down with that jury, something that maybe will one day be made public when one or more just cannot live with the guilt any longer.

I do not mean to offend or to start anything. I just cannot understand how with so much evidence she was not even found guilty of abuse, given the 31 days. Certainly the jurors were not so obtuse that they thought a guilty verdict on that charge would bring forth the DP!

You and me both. I'm going to be wondering about this jury for the rest of my life...

 

[logicalgirl]

No, either way the quality of what they've got as CE is what matters, not how many different pieces of CE.




The real reason is that they didn't think the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing hinky or guilt-inducing about it.

And I've always thought that the easy way out for this jury would have been to just come back with a quick Guilty verdict. If they really wanted to just get it over and go home, they could have back with a Guilty verdict the same day they got the case. And they'd be heroes, praised from here to Kingdom Come. But they didn't do that.

Um NO. They would have had to stay around for at least another three weeks for the penalty phase, which is a trial within a trial. NOT voting guilty and going straight home - and the jury knew that.

 

[Aedrys]

Um NO. They would have had to stay around for at least another three weeks for the penalty phase, which is a trial within a trial. NOT voting guilty and going straight home - and the jury knew that.

I thought it would be a three week penalty phase only if they voted for DP? It was my understanding that a life sentence or less wouldn't need a three week penalty phase. Again, the jury made it DP or nothing.

 

[logicalgirl]

I thought it would be a three week penalty phase only if they voted for DP? It was my understanding that a life sentence or less wouldn't need a three week penalty phase. Again, the jury made it DP or nothing.

Ack Aedrys - you actually know better than that. If the jury found her guilty of the most serious charge, the trial moves to penalty phase, where both the SA and the DT make their arguments re aggravating factors. The jury then makes a recommendation for the DP or LWOP and gives the decision to the judge, who makes the final decision for sentencing.

 

[Aedrys]

I thought it would be a three week penalty phase only if they voted for the one charge that could get the death penalty? It was my understanding that if they decided on a charge with a penalty of a life sentence or less, there wouldn't be a need for a three week penalty phase. Again, the jury made it DP or nothing.

Quoting myself since I asked the question wrong inititally. I swear on the lawyer thread AZ or one of the other lawyers said if the charge could only amount to a life sentence or less (and only one charge could possibly get the death penalty), that there wouldn't be a three week penalty phase. I remember being very surprised by that because I originally thought it would three weeks regardless. I guess they only need the three weeks if they're begging for her life? If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

 

[MarthaM]

Um NO. They would have had to stay around for at least another three weeks for the penalty phase, which is a trial within a trial. NOT voting guilty and going straight home - and the jury knew that.

Doesn't matter. Penalty phase or not, a quick guilty verdict would have been the easy way out and would have ended their involvement with this fiasco way way way faster.

Think about it: All of the zillions of people who have been calling them stupid and incompetent and worthless and hinky and immoral and all that other stuff would, instead, be singing their praises and bowing down before them. The jurors could go home and just leave this all behind them. But no... they did the right thing and came back with the verdict they thought was right, not the one they thought all of the armchair jurors would have handed in. They definitely did not take the easy way out.

 

[krkrjx]

I thought it would be a three week penalty phase only if they voted for DP? It was my understanding that a life sentence or less wouldn't need a three week penalty phase. Again, the jury made it DP or nothing.

Murder One was the only charge that would have required a penalty phase. Upon a guilty verdict the trial would have then entered the penalty phase, after which the jury would recommend Life or Death to the judge.

All the other charges carried set sentences of a minimum and maximum that could be sentenced. The jury would not have been involved in determining sentences on any of the lesser charges. The jury would have been excused and sentence would have been imposed at a later date by the judge without any jury input.

However, I am not convinced the jury understood this.

 

[Aedrys]

Murder One was the only charge that would have required a penalty phase. Upon a guilty verdict the trial would have then entered the penalty phase, after which the jury would recommend Life or Death to the judge.

All the other charges carried set sentences of a minimum and maximum that could be sentenced. The jury would not have been involved in determining sentences on any of the lesser charges. The jury would have been excused and sentence would have been imposed at a later date by the judge without any jury input.

However, I am not convinced the jury understood this.

Thank you!!!! I knew I wasn't crazy, lol! Apparently the jury thought any charge that wasn't lying would result in a three week penalty phase. They just didn't want to involved anymore.

 

[krkrjx]

Thank you!!!! I knew I wasn't crazy, lol! Apparently the jury thought any charge that wasn't lying would result in a three week penalty phase. They just didn't want to involved anymore.

The lying charges were misdemeanors. It does appear that the Pinellas 12 was at least able to deduce that there would be no DP involved with those. Otherwise, she would have been acquitted of lying, too!

 

[krkrjx]

I would like to see penalty taken out of the jury's hands. The jury should decide guilt only and then let statutes take care of the sentences. The jury doesn't even need to know what the possible penalties are, IMO. That way, no need for a death-penalty qualified jury, and no feeling of condemning a person to die for any juror.

 

[miss plum]

Imagine if Amanda Knox gets released and comes home. Imagine the attention she will get, the interviews and the book and movie deals and the photo shoots and the sympathy. Imagine how pretty she will look with a good haircut and new clothes. Imagine FCA having to see Amanda Knox get all the attention she wanted to get. I am not convinced of Amanda Knox's innocence but I do have doubts about the prosecution of her case, and I certainly see value in her getting released.

 

[MarthaM]

I would like to see penalty taken out of the jury's hands. The jury should decide guilt only and then let statutes take care of the sentences. The jury doesn't even need to know what the possible penalties are, IMO. That way, no need for a death-penalty qualified jury, and no feeling of condemning a person to die for any juror.

I agree. I think jurors should just decide guilt, not sentences.

 

[krkrjx]

Imagine if Amanda Knox gets released and comes home. Imagine the attention she will get, the interviews and the book and movie deals and the photo shoots and the sympathy. Imagine how pretty she will look with a good haircut and new clothes. Imagine FCA having to see Amanda Knox get all the attention she wanted to get. I am not convinced of Amanda Knox's innocence but I do have doubts about the prosecution of her case, and I certainly see value in her getting released.

Do you know when there will be a decision made on this?

 

[MarthaM]

Do you know when there will be a decision made on this?

All of the articles I read said 'Monday' or 'by Monday', so I guess that means Monday at the latest?

GMA has been running commercials saying that they're going to cover it on Monday morning, but I don't know if they mean they expect an actual announcement during their show time or if they mean they'll be covering reactions to it.

 

[RANCH]

No, either way the quality of what they've got as CE is what matters, not how many different pieces of CE.

Maybe I'm having a hard time with the word "quality" in regards to circumstantial evidence. What does that mean to you? Do you mean more reliable?

 

[cuppy199]

Yes alot of the public are saying the jury dropped the ball so to speak but this jury had no glue that public would react this way about the verdict. Hence one of the juror implying that their wasnt enough evidence and that the public doesnt know because they weren't there. But the public was there the whole trial. This jury had no idea about what was gonna happen and to say that it would of been the easy way out to say guilty is plain silly IMO. Aquitting was much easier.

 

[LinasK]

Thank you!!!! I knew I wasn't crazy, lol! Apparently the jury thought any charge that wasn't lying would result in a three week penalty phase. They just didn't want to involved anymore.

Nope! They had to get to Disney World for the 4th of July!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[lauriej]

..this judge nips the media rounds by the defense in the bud..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-michaeljackson-idUSTRE78M4OM20110930

Judge issues gag order in Jackson death trial
But the day's bombshell came with Judge Michael Pastor's gag order, which followed an appearance by defense attorney Matthew Alford on NBC's morning chat show "Today."

"The attorneys for the parties in this case ... are ordered not to comment to anyone outside of their respective teams either directly or indirectly regarding any aspects of this case, whether orally or in writing," Pastor said in court.

 

[MarthaM]

Maybe I'm having a hard time with the word "quality" in regards to circumstantial evidence. What does that mean to you? Do you mean more reliable?

I think 'stronger' is a better word choice than 'more reliable'. I don't really think of evidence as being reliable or not.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I think 'stronger' is a better word choice than 'more reliable'. I don't really think of evidence as being reliable or not.

Interesting. Curious.