Closing Arguments- Chase Merritt Charged W/Murder of Joseph, Summer, Gianni and Joe Jr McStay #2

[travelbug]

Wow! I don't know what to think about that!

The "somber" male juror may just be sick and tired of being surrounded by a bunch of "clucking hens". I know a lot of guys who would feel that way, and it would have nothing to do with guilty or innocent - just male frustration.

 

[travelbug]

The OJ women jurors loved him. "You want to claim domestic violence? Take that down the hall to the other court room". Then several went back to his house to celebrate with champagne. I'm so disgusted. Thinking it's time for me to take a break from all of this. Never ending.

It's difficult to compare OJ and Chase. OJ was already a famous athlete and movie and TV star. Sadly, some of the female jurors can develop a "fan club - groupie" mentality that overrides their common sense.

 

[la2cabo]

I don't think we will be able to forget. I think we will be hearing about it in the appeals for years to come.




It is very unsettling. I mean I understand leaving when you've reached a good stopping point. But I can't imagine it deliberating through lunch or taking a shorter lunch. Then again I am used to 30 minute lunches and no breaks during trial.




I know I'd certainly want one! But no. Not allowed.




This is a huge thing for me, defending your vote. I feel like if you can send a man to prison for life you should absolutely be willing to explain your reasoning.

When jurors don't want to talk after a verdict, I wonder if that means they aren't certain about it. (Not to the media, to investigators.)

I've wondered if that shouldn't be part of the requirement for jury service. A 10 question survey after the trial? Something like that.

It's something that could really be useful to the justice system. Understanding how to do jury instructions and where things can be clarified.




This is what I'm worried about. That nobody is taking this seriously. This is a capital murder case. Not a shoplifting trial. I've seriously seen misdemeanor cases handled more professionally.




Yes and that one juror just didn't follow the pack. Very possible. However it bothers me anyway, this is serious. Did a false accusation case once. The accuser left court laughing when the jury went to deliberate, as the defendants children walked in crying. It made me sick.

I just wish someone would take this seriously. That's all.

This is a great read for anyone interested in learning about juror stress, etc. It's written by jurors, judges, attorneys and various others who are connected to the judicial system. I hope the mods are ok with me posting the link.

http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/What-We-Do/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/What We Do/THROUGH THE EYES OF THE JUROR.ashx

 

[Force Ten]

There is nothing to be assumed by the jurors demeanor. They know they are being watched by media. They may have agreed in advance to put on smiley faces when leaving the courthouse.

When I was on a jury, when we left for lunch or whatever, people were talkative, jovial and at times would laugh amongst themselves. It wasn't like a party. People just being people. Thinking about what their going to eat or what they need to buy from the store for dinner. Maybe 'somber' was a poor choice of words. It's a perspective. I would be the pensive, keep-to-myself type juror as I don't tend to socialize much with people I don't really know. Maybe this guy is emotionally taxed.

 

[la2cabo]

When I was on a jury, when we left for lunch or whatever, people were talkative, jovial and at times would laugh amongst themselves. It wasn't like a party. People just being people. Thinking about what their going to eat or what they need to buy from the store for dinner. Maybe 'somber' was a poor choice of words. It's a perspective. I would be the pensive, keep-to-myself type juror as I don't tend to socialize much with people I don't really know. Maybe this guy is emotionally taxed.

I remember one male juror who kind of kept to himself while the others were interacting in the hallway before the trial began in the morning. Maybe he's just a quiet person or a bit shy. I'm not going to read too much into the "somber" comment, unless it turns out he's relieved they've already reached a guilty verdict.

 

[citygirl]

Yeah. Reading the tea leaves has never really worked for me. Yet I continue to fall prey to it.

 

[mothwings]

NO. At least we were told we could not. We all ate at a pizza pub one lunch time and the bailiff reminded us politely as we were leaving, NO BEER ALLOWED...And we were told the same thing in the beginning as well. You will be booted from the jury if you get caught imbibing at break time.

But I'm sure they can do dabs on break time being it's legal in California.

 

[QueenBofOB]

I remember one male juror who kind of kept to himself while the others were interacting in the hallway before the trial began in the morning. Maybe he's just a quiet person or a bit shy. I'm not going to read too much into the "somber" comment, unless it turns out he's relieved they've already reached a guilty verdict.

Do you know if the female juror, who became nauseous after the grave pics of the McStay's were shown, is still on the jury?

 

[MsRyber]

The "somber" male juror may just be sick and tired of being surrounded by a bunch of "clucking hens". I know a lot of guys who would feel that way, and it would have nothing to do with guilty or innocent - just male frustration.

Right? He could be trying to remember what brand of tampons his wife told him to pick up on his way home. Or maybe he has been holding in a poop. You know how some guys (aka my husband) get when they are due for their "bathroom time". It's like they can't even process how to adult until they've gone through their home ritual, and after that, the belly needs to be full of food before an actual flicker of emotion can be had.

 

[MissJames]

Most of us on WS have followed enough trials ( even some of you sitting on juries) to know this is outside the norm. Way , way outside the norm.
We can speculate & think of excuses , but this doesn’t just FEEL different , it IS different.
My dad was an officer in the Navy . The rights afforded to us as US citizens was always taught hand in hand with responsibilities that come with those rights.
I used the word “ unsettling” before and maybe this is why it feels that way.
Our justice system is so important & deserves more respect than fitting in jury duty around your day ( x12) . I just hope this isn’t a trend .
I feel so badly for the loved ones waiting on a verdict , but I’m also concerned on a different level .

 

[MsFacetious]

I'm concerned on an appellate level.
I believe we are going to be doing this all over again.
I wanted it to be done right the first time so it would be over.
That didn't happen, that isn't happening and it is infuriating to me.

I believe we will be back on another verdict watch on this case in the future.

 

[katydid23]

I'm concerned on an appellate level.
I believe we are going to be doing this all over again.
I wanted it to be done right the first time so it would be over.
That didn't happen, that isn't happening and it is infuriating to me.

I believe we will be back on another verdict watch on this case in the future.

Darn...I hope not.

 

[MsFacetious]

Darn...I hope not.

Me too. I'd love to be wrong. Unfortunately I think the only way that's happening is if they acquit him this time around.

 

[gitana1]

The Bailiff took an oath in that same video . Never saw that before . It’s earlier in that video , not much before the evidence reference that I noted.

Me either!

 

[tmar]

I am very worried.
I thought within a very short time there would be a 'Guilty' result.
Their discussions and info are possibly not as extensive as here, and it appears things are not as clear to the Jurors.
MOO.

 

[wary]

I am very worried.
I thought within a very short time there would be a 'Guilty' result.
Their discussions and info are possibly not as extensive as here, and it appears things are not as clear to the Jurors.
MOO.

I’m not worried that they haven’t brought in a verdict yet. Remember, they’ve had five months of testimony AND they’ve been trying to keep an open mind about it, till now. So—a lot of processing to do, now.

 

[katydid23]

I am not worried yet. Not yet anyway.

If they were all onboard for acquittal, they would have come in already, imo.

If they were hopelessly deadlocked, I dont think they would bet leaving early and leaving while smiling and laughing.

I think it is highly possible that they are just going through the evidence, as expected, and will send in the paperwork Thursday or Friday morning.

My original prediction, upthread, was that they would come in with the verdict on Thursday.

If they leave Friday afternoon with no verdict, then I will be worried.

 

[Lilibet]

This is a great read for anyone interested in learning about juror stress, etc. It's written by jurors, judges, attorneys and various others who are connected to the judicial system. I hope the mods are ok with me posting the link.

http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/What-We-Do/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/What We Do/THROUGH THE EYES OF THE JUROR.ashx

Thanks for this link. It was well worth reading and I recommend it to anyone who has doubts about the jurors. The focus is on minimizing juror stress from the beginning (jury selection) to the end and even post-verdict. When stress is addressed jurors can pay better attention during the trial and do a better job of deliberating. I’ve been called for jury duty several times, and although I was never selected, I could certainly relate to the various stressors involved in the early process.

According to this study, the main way to prevent juror stress is to give jurors as much information about the process as possible and to allow them a certain amount of control when appropriate. Since we all want the jurors to be able to do their very best right now, this section from page 53 about deliberations seems particularly relevant to the jury in this case:

Many judges let the jurors decide their own deliberation schedule. One judge informs jurors that “the schedule is up to them—roughly 9:00–4:30, but it’s ok to work around traffic, meet dentist appointments, go out for lunch, take Friday off.” Several court staff noted that such policies seem to relieve some of the feelings of tension in the deliberation room. It is also consistent with ABA recommendations that the judge consider the preferences of jurors when setting hours for jury deliberations:

The judge should make the options known to the jury and give them time to discuss these options among them- selves. . . . [T]he judge should ascertain whether the jurors appear to be fatigued and should inquire . . . whether the deliberations would interfere with the religious beliefs or practices of any member of the jury.

Courts can establish routine policies to facilitate decisions on the length of daily deliberations, break schedules, and procedures for how jurors can communicate with the court. Soliciting input and accommodating juror needs foster a sense of control over the process. The best interests of all parties are served when jurors are satisfied with their schedule, can plan their personal lives accordingly, and are focused on the job at hand.

BBM

 

[Niner]

Thursday, June 6th:
*Trial continues-Jury Deliberations (Day 4)-VERDICT WATCH! (@ 9am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt aka Charles Ray Mandel aka Charles Ray Morritt aka Chase Meredith aka Chase Jarvis (57/now 62) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. Jurors started with 8 women & 4 men; now have 9 women & 3 men (alternates started with 4 men & 2 women-alternates left 1 men & 1 woman).
Trial Days (1-58: 1/7/19 thru 5/30/19) reference post #12 here:
VERDICT WATCH - Closing Arguments- Chase Merritt Charged W/Murder of Joseph, Summer, Gianni and Joe Jr McStay #2
6/3/10 Day 59: Jury deliberates. And while the jurors deliberate; the man who approached the two alternates is named Robert Wallace. He has been in the court audience during the months-long proceedings. All attorneys remain in court, they are trying to see if the alternates are in the courthouse to question them about Wallace. Judge Smith tells the man who approached the jurors, identified as working as a media advisor for the defense, that his inclination is to hold him in contempt. Also told Wallace that among the consequences, if somehow a mistrial is declared, is that he could be held responsible for the costs of the trial. Wallace left the courtroom without comment after affirming the spelling of his name. Smith directs defense attorneys and the man for affidavits about the incident, especially how the man came to contact the alternates. Smith: Affidavits on Thursday (6/6) from defense, prosecutors can submit order to show cause for contempt. Smith orders the man not to be at the courthouse for the rest of the trial. One of the alternates now answering Judge Smith. She said alternates told Wallace they could not talk to him after he approached them to ask for interviews. Now the second alternate: "Right when I walked out the door that guy was on us...it was really awkward." Like the other alternate he said Wallace was told they could not talk to him, bailiff was contacted. Smith thanks him as he also thanked previous alternate.
And also this morning: A hearing this morning in a different courtroom Prosecutor Britt Imes tells @LawCrimeNetwork there are allegations of jury tampering by the defense. Jurors continue deliberations on 6/4. The jurors deliberated 4 ½ hours (on 5/30), about 5 ½ hours on 6/3.
6/4/19 Day 60: Jurors started deliberations at 1:40pm today. And have quit for the day. Deliberated for about 3 hours today. Total deliberations about 14 hours (per tweet).
6/5/19 Day 61: Jurors started deliberations at 9:15am PT to 12 noon, back at about 1:30pm to 3:50pm. Assuming they took their normal lunch break last week & the almost 2-hour lunch break today, they have deliberated a total of 17 hours over 4 days. (a couple of days were pre-scheduled short days) Deliberations resume tomorrow 6/6.
Tentative Schedule for week of June 3rd thru June 7th: 6/3, Monday: Court “might” start a 10am. 6/4, Tuesday. 6/5, Wednesday. 6/6, Thursday (Affidavits due from Defense). 6/7, Friday. Court in session all week for Jury deliberations, including Friday! When Jurors have a verdict there will be a 2-hour time period to get into court (or near your computer) before verdict is read.
Deliberations so far-approximate: 5/30: 4 ½ hours; 6/3: 4 ½ hours; 6/4: 3 hours; 6/5: ~5 hours = ~17 hours total thru 6/5/19.

 

[MsFacetious]

Scott Peterson's trial was also 5 months. That verdict took 7 days and I thought it was too fast. However, that case was much more normally handled. I would feel better if this jury took their time and went over everything for another week. Just because of how ridiculous the case has been. I worry a quick verdict would only be more grounds for an appeal.