Did Jurors Talk About Case during Trial Against Judge's Orders?

Did the Jurors Discuss This Case During Trial Against Judge's Orders?

  • Yes

    Votes: 669 93.2%
  • No

    Votes: 49 6.8%

  • Total voters
    718
  • Poll closed .

Paladine

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
3,760
Reaction score
3
I just wish one of them would have been brave enough to hold out and end up with a hung jury rather than see a murderer set free. Then the state could have known their mindset and do it again.

That's what I don't get. Not 1 person. Only 1 was needed. To go from 6-6 for manslaughter to 12 for not guilty within less than 12 hours...? Man...the first vote even had 2 who thought it was first degree! HOW do they change to not guilty? I'm confuzzled. ;)
 

belle3

New Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
7
I hope they did..I think all the jurors deserve a trip to disney world after what they went through. Juror #3 is now fearing for her safety according to HLN and afraid to go home. I thought our society was more civilized than that, but I guess not.

Well.. apparently not. We also live in a society where peoples need to go to Disney and swim in the pool means more than justice for a little girl. But hey I guess thats the society we live in. Im not saying they deserve harm, but they do deserve the Whys? just as they said they couldnt convict because the eveidence just wasnt there and they didnt answer the who, what where, why. Neither have they. Not in a way that makes any kind of legal, moral, or ethical sense. Why did you not take notes, ask questions, scour over the evidence. Who bullied who out of justice for a little girl. Exactly when did you all decide that this was an accident that in your brain was proven but a murder that was not. Why oh why are you all holding out for your monetary gain and explaining your verdict with things that dont make sense. I have unanswered questions too.
Please dont take this as a personal attack. just jumping off your post. All LOVE!! :innocent:
 

belle3

New Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
979
Reaction score
7
Thats the other thing. In JB presser after the verdict he made it a point to say that this is why the death penalty doesnt work. UMMMMM HMMMMM??? There was more than one option on the table and only one of those was death. This jury went out of their way to BELIEVE every single little thing that the defense said and laid absolutely no credence to the evidence in this case. They smelled the garbage but never asked to smell the cans???? Even if they couldnt per judges orders they didnt know that. Why not one of them ask. Why ask about the heart sticker of all things? THey decided a looooooooonnnnnnnnggggg time ago that they were not going to convict her of 1st degree and I want to know how the hell that happened. How the hell every single one of them sound like LKB an CM and JB And AL. Why??? I do not want to start rumors or anything like that but this doesnt look, sound, or smell good and Im wondering if one of those jurors is holding out for the motherload payday to tell us all what REALLY happened.
ETA...... The asking for the heart sticker......first shot at a mistrial????
 

kathyn2

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
3,031
Reaction score
24
Half of these jurors lived on the wrong side of the law. 2 had DUIs, 1 was a druggie at least in the past if not now, 1 had a sister that had been put away for beating and robbing her father and I know there was one other with criminal behavior in their family.
Then there is the homeless guy that seemed shiftless, no where to live, didn't work etc.

These are all people that would be distrusting of law enforcement and the government. Right off the bat they were prejudiced against the prosecution. They adopted and believed the defense's case right away and figured the government was lying. They ignore the whole evidence of the State. That # 3 that keeps claiming there was no evidence looks like an ex meth addict.

Then there were the 2 women that can't judge. So its easy to drag them over to the ex felons side that want to let her off. That leaves 4 others that I guess didn't have any cajunas to stick to their original opinion that she was guilty. I don't know which ones they were or their history but they were VERY weak willed to be talked into not guilty within a few hours.
 

barbtries

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
I too was on a jury once. The young man was drunk, ran a stop sign and crashed into another vehicle. The jury wouldn't even listen to my side that he was guilty. They yelled and screamed and overpowered my opinion and I let them. All they wanted to do was "go home" and it was only a one day trial. We had to come back the next morning to give our verdict and they were pizzed at that. If I ever get to be on a jury again, you can be darn sure I will NEVER let anyone bully me into keeping quiet again.

The foreman basically told me to "be quiet" that he was in charge and that was that. I was intimidated and too scared to speak up. I've grown up since then and have much more confidence. I wish I had it then.

this explains why my MADDwoman was supportive of the plea bargain that the DA made with the woman who killed my daughter. you can never predict what the jury will do.

i've been on one jury and was the holdout for innocence. but respectfully the other members of the jury convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. it was a burglary and ADW case. we did not talk about the case before it was given to us but then the whole shebang lasted less than one day that was spread out over two days.
 

Nikki 01

New Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
1
That's what I don't get. Not 1 person. Only 1 was needed. To go from 6-6 for manslaughter to 12 for not guilty within less than 12 hours...? Man...the first vote even had 2 who thought it was first degree! HOW do they change to not guilty? I'm confuzzled. ;)
I am guessing there were stronger personalities on the NG side and they wanted to go home. They were determined to go home that day which is why they were all dressed up.
 

TotallyObsessed

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
1
I was doing a little googling...because I'm curious like that. I'm not making any allegation WHATSOEVER...but think it will be interesting to listen to the jurors in the coming months. There is a remedy for inappropriate juror misconduct found out AFTER a verdict is rendered. It's called Granting a Motion for New Trial. I need to research and read up....but boy oh boy wouldn't that be a dream come true. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so we need to ask the attorneys how rare it is that a new trial motion is granted. If ever.

http://www.ncids.org/Def Manual Info/Defender_Manual_Vol 2/DefenderManual_CH24.pdf

"Granting a motion for a new trial for misconduct discovered after the verdict. Like a motion for mistrial, a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless his or her ruling is clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed. State v. Johnson, 295 N.C. 227 (1978); State v. Sneeden, 274 N.C. 498 (1968)."

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2011/201-400/11-325_JurisIni.pdf

Florida Supreme Court leaves it in the trial judges hands on whether or not to set aside the verdict or to claim a mistrial for jury misconduct. IF jury misconduct is revealed, investigated and found true, JP can require a new trial for Casey. According to the document, it's normally the defense who claims jury misconduct, but if there was jury misconduct and it's discovered i.e. a juror with a conscious that comes forward, the jurors can be prosecuted and a mistrial will be declared.



FORGIVE ME IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. I'm just coming out a my stupor from the verdict reading.
 

Sweet Fox

New Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
0
There were reports jurors were contacted by media between jury selection and serving...I have no link, if someone does, please post. (I'll read back for one, too) It just makes me wonder...they were 6-6 for manslaughter per Juror #2:

I'd like to see those reports too. Ok so how did the media find out the names of the jurors? The only parties who knew the jurors names was the Court, SA, DT and KC who had access to the DT's papers and computer screen.
 

Mamietwo

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
I just wish one of them would have been brave enough to hold out and end up with a hung jury rather than see a murderer set free. Then the state could have known their mindset and do it again.

I agree completely! In fact, I expected a hung jury. But see, they couldn't be hung in that little bit of time----this jury wanted to get home any way and the fastest way they could get there. I'm wondering if someone just didn't tell the hold outs that if they wanted to get home, they'd better come over to their side because the not guiltys were not changing their minds.
 

Mamietwo

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
There were reports jurors were contacted by media between jury selection and serving...I have no link, if someone does, please post. (I'll read back for one, too) It just makes me wonder...they were 6-6 for manslaughter per Juror #2:

I'd like to see those reports too. Ok so how did the media find out the names of the jurors? The only parties who knew the jurors names was the Court, SA, DT and KC who had access to the DT's papers and computer screen.

I also wondered that about how the media knew who the jurors were. I mean some of them were in the courtroom daily and got to see the jurors but no names would have been available---unless somebody paid somebody off.

I want to hear more about the court clerk saying the tv's had been removed a few days ago because they found out some of the stations available to the jurors had affiliates that were piping in news!
 

Mamietwo

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
I was doing a little googling...because I'm curious like that. I'm not making any allegation WHATSOEVER...but think it will be interesting to listen to the jurors in the coming months. There is a remedy for inappropriate juror misconduct found out AFTER a verdict is rendered. It's called Granting a Motion for New Trial. I need to research and read up....but boy oh boy wouldn't that be a dream come true. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so we need to ask the attorneys how rare it is that a new trial motion is granted. If ever.

http://www.ncids.org/Def Manual Info/Defender_Manual_Vol 2/DefenderManual_CH24.pdf

"Granting a motion for a new trial for misconduct discovered after the verdict. Like a motion for mistrial, a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless his or her ruling is clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed. State v. Johnson, 295 N.C. 227 (1978); State v. Sneeden, 274 N.C. 498 (1968)."

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2011/201-400/11-325_JurisIni.pdf

Florida Supreme Court leaves it in the trial judges hands on whether or not to set aside the verdict or to claim a mistrial for jury misconduct. IF jury misconduct is revealed, investigated and found true, JP can require a new trial for Casey. According to the document, it's normally the defense who claims jury misconduct, but if there was jury misconduct and it's discovered i.e. a juror with a conscious that comes forward, the jurors can be prosecuted and a mistrial will be declared.



FORGIVE ME IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. I'm just coming out a my stupor from the verdict reading.

Great find, TO, on the mistrial info. Boy, wouldn't that be something if a juror came forward? But if the jurors were watching news programs on the televisions provided, wouild that be enough for a mistrial? Supposedly the court clerk said they discovered possibly news availability was on some of the channels so they removed the tv's. I can't imagine a juror coming forward and incriminating themselves in this, but then again.......I couldn't imagine Casey would be found not guilty, either!:sick:
 

Mamietwo

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
I hope they did..I think all the jurors deserve a trip to disney world after what they went through. Juror #3 is now fearing for her safety according to HLN and afraid to go home. I thought our society was more civilized than that, but I guess not.

Right, Juror #3 is so scared she ran right out and gave two interviews, immediately! And according to the media on HLN, that was in the courtroom during voir dire, this particular juror almost begged to be on the jury. She tailored her answers to what they wanted to hear so she'd get picked.

These jurors thought nothing about the case they were there to judge. They thought only of how to get out of there the quickest way so they could get home and make whatever deals they had coming their way. I just can't understand how a jury that asked no questions, spent no time looking at the evidence (I don't believe Juror #3 for a second) and yet inside 11 hours, over two days, all came together in a decision. I think the not guiltys swayed the guiltys and told them that if they wanted to go home, the only way was to come over to their side, maybe. I do not know this, I'm just giving an opinion. I do know why it wasn't a hung jury-------the judge would have sent them back and said they need to do more deliberation----and it was obvious that they certainly did not want to do that!
 

Mandy113

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
839
Reaction score
0
A little off the current topic but I'm hoping someone can point me to the right source. I've seen mention several times in various threads that the jury asked for special food, etc. What is the source of the information regarding items the jury asked the judge/court to provide to them?

Regarding how the media could get juror names before the trial, family members of jurors could have contacted the media? Just wondering, not accusing anyone.

TIA for any info
 

french75

New Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
I was a juror on a murder trial a few years ago and at first we were 8-4 not guilty but we all eventually ended up at not guilty after about five total days of deliberations. It was similar in the sense that we all agreed that they (there were 3 defendants) had SOME involvement but we felt that we couldn't be sure what it was since there were four state witnesses that took deals & testified. Anyway, that's not the point but I think it's hard to know how you'll respond to that kind of situation even if you think you'll be completely level, take a stand, etc. I'm surprised that they got there that quickly because we had a few hold outs and even when we got to 12-0 toward the end of the day, almost everyone seemed to want another night to mull it over. It was a sickening experience and I totally understand their crying and feeling ill over it, although I think they may have been a bit hasty.


Just my two cents as someone who has experienced being on a jury in a murder trial...
 

cami

Keep your fork......
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
1,301
Website
Visit site
The judge SHOULD have questioned that request at the time it happened when they requested that #313 evidence! I was kind of surprised he didn't appear to be bothered by that!! I truly believe those jurors have been discussing this during sequestration all along!

of course they did. the quick verdict tells that story.

They are human after all
 

Southpaw LCC

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
The two alternate jurors who cant get their noses out of the limelight keep saying "we this" & "we that". It would appear this case was discussed by all 17 jurors for a lengthy period of time. Total disregard for the Judge and the Legal System in general!! Justice for Cayley wasn't part of this Jury to do list.
 

PennyC

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
How can you say the system work when you know it let a killer go free?
That blows my mind. How can you say the jurors did their jobs when they overlooked so much of the evidence? How can a juror say she didn't want to speculate but yet say she thought George had something to do with it?
 

ExpectingUnicorns

. . . only the pure of heart can see.
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
4,447
Reaction score
1,542
The two alternate jurors who cant get their noses out of the limelight keep saying "we this" & "we that". It would appear this case was discussed by all 17 jurors for a lengthy period of time. Total disregard for the Judge and the Legal System in general!! Justice for Cayley wasn't part of this Jury to do list.

Have any of the THs asked them about this during any of their interviews? Especially the first alternate who was interviewed. I tried to go back and analyze the times on the news releases (and tweets) to see how much time had elapsed between the unsequestering of the jury and his first statement but couldn't find enough details to be helpful. Maybe someone else will be able to find something . . .
 

Never4GetCaylee

New Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
591
Reaction score
0
Sure they did. They saw JB scoffing at and disobeying HHJP's orders so why shouldn't they?
 
Top