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

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by kathyn2, Jul 5, 2011.

?

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

Poll closed Oct 3, 2011.
  1. Yes

    669 vote(s)
    93.2%
  2. No

    49 vote(s)
    6.8%
  1. txsvicki

    txsvicki Active Member

    Messages:
    14,192
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Could the jurors have known more about this case than they admitted during jury selection? How could that alternate remember the term "snowballed" that easily? Maybe they thought that Casey had tried to say it was an accident from the beginning and wasn't believed. Just when did they come up with theory and how in the heck did they get away with it? I wish someone on talk shows would go over these things, but as usual, they are focusing on the sensational and the champagne party.
     


  2. sincityvixen

    sincityvixen New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I never heard that!
     
  3. nomoresorrow

    nomoresorrow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,558
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Now that the trial is over and the jurors names become public, it's only a matter of time before we'll know just how closely any of them followed this case and/or if they had any prior thoughts and opinions on the case... as friends and family will come forward to tell all.
     
  4. seeing_eye

    seeing_eye New Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree that something is hinky. I think the reason these 12 people came to the decision to vote not guilty is because they were sick and tired of being away from home and their phones and computers. They knew if they voted her guilty of murder they would have to stay for the penalty phase. That's why they didn't need to see any evidence.
     
  5. JustMeDeb

    JustMeDeb New Member

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Judge will not be releasing their names. At least for right now.
     
  6. com n sense

    com n sense She yells from the corners, but few seem to hear h

    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes they did discuss it. They already decided on the verdict before they started deliberating. They came to court dressed up for the first time yesterday.
    They knew yesterday they would begin delberating & already had a verdict.
    They didn't look at evidence nor did they ask any questions. It was a done deal a long time ago.
     
  7. nomoresorrow

    nomoresorrow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,558
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right but they'll come out soon enough.
     
  8. Liz

    Liz I am not a chemist and this is not my 1st rodeo

    Messages:
    25,446
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    O.M.G. These are great observations, you guys! That request from the jurors to see 'the sticker' was back on June 14th! IF the jurors were not discussing this amongst themselves, then how could they (the collective 'they') have possibly asked the Judge to see the sticker again!?!?
    :waitasec:

    Reference about the jurors sticker request: http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/196955/250/Casey-gets-Beautiful-Life-tattoo-while-Caylee-is-missing
    I'm really taken aback by this, as to how and why HHJP didn't put 2 and 2 together! :banghead:
     
  9. tink92

    tink92 New Member

    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    i agree/...I think these 12 low class individuals made a pact of not guilty long ago. They wanted out of there and they related to JB...he is slightly dodgy incompetant just like they are...where JA and LDB are honest..caring..dedicated upper middle class. The jury were NOT.

    This is a travesty..and i hope that jury never show their <modsnip> faces.
     
  10. everyoneneedsavoice

    everyoneneedsavoice Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse

    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No doubt they talked...the interview with alternate juror #14 and the "tv comment" made today confirmed my suspicions back when the "jury" collectively requested to see the sticker evidence again during trial, when they shouldn't have been discussing the case amongst themselves at that time.

    I also think there were some stealth jurors who managed to get on this jury.

    There is nothing that could ever convince me otherwise.

    Since these jurors are so convinced she's "not guilty" I employ them to hire her as their nanny or invite her to live in the home with them / their families.

    Huge injustice...I'm finished following these cases and hoping for just outcomes from our justice system.
     
  11. Mulegirl

    Mulegirl New Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    YES, YES, YES!! This is what I've been questioning since it happened! Thanks all for bringing this up.
     
  12. Mulegirl

    Mulegirl New Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While your second paragraph is a good point, I have to pipe in on your first point. I know personally that this is not true, at least in Louisiana, where a mistrial was once declared after the fact due to "jury tampering" where the jury had discussed a case during the trial instead of waiting for deliberations. This was while I was working in a law firm and I saw the paperwork on it, and the later re-trial as well.

    This is my biggest hope...that this will happen, the jurors will be slapped with a contempt charge (possible if they were in fact discussing this outside of deliberations and it can be proven), and that CA will be slapped with a perjury charge.

    Hey, I can hope and dream, can't I? :maddening:
     
  13. rose222

    rose222 Active Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yes. yes and yes.
     
  14. Liz

    Liz I am not a chemist and this is not my 1st rodeo

    Messages:
    25,446
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    B. Statutory Admonitions
    G.S. 15A-1236(a) requires the trial judge at appropriate times to admonish the jurors that it is their duty:

    &#8226; not to talk among themselves about the case except in the jury room after their deliberations have begun;

    &#8226; not to talk to anyone else or to allow anyone else to talk with them or in their presence about the case, and to report to the judge immediately the attempt of anyone to communicate with them about the case;

    &#8226; not to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, or express any opinion about the case until they begin their deliberations;

    &#8226; to avoid reading, watching, or listening to accounts of the trial; and

    &#8226; not to talk during trial to parties, witnesses, or counsel.

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

    Because it certainly appears (to me, anyway) that on June 14th, when the jurors asked to see that evidence, marked State's #313, that they had to be discussing the case amongst themselves, since 'they' asked the judge to see it again.

    If these above laws apply in FL Criminal Trials (which I don't see why they wouldn't), then I think these jurors should be charged with Jury Misconduct.

    And, how Judge Perry didn't pick up on this is just beyond my comprehension. I thought he was the 'cream of the crop', being he is Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court.
     
  15. Albion

    Albion It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am sure they talked. It probably came down to peer pressure.
     
  16. Jakpot

    Jakpot Yellow Jackets

    Messages:
    28,817
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The trials over. Judge Perry won't do anything to bring further attention to himself IMO
     
  17. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That is not the reason. Depending on the nature of the case, they don't like technical people when there is expert evidence being presented because they tend to form opinions based on their personal educational backgrounds. Essentially it becomes a form of untested evidence, often flawed, that isn't introduced in trial or subject to rebuttal by either side. In particular, during deliberations when the evidence is discussed by the jurors in private, you don't want someone who thinks they are also an expert (and have some sort of higher degree that might intimidate less educated people) swaying the other jurors one way or another.
     
  18. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How ironic that 'flipping the bird guy' got more time than ICA will. He's still in jail, btw. He deserved that sentence, but the irony is rich indeed.

    I never liked this judge. Everyone else seemed to think he was wonderful, but when I learned he disallowed the state from keeping off a juror who "did not believe in the DP" on a DP case, I knew the state wasn't on an even playing field. Further, he allowed a woman on the jury who "didn't like judging people." He wouldn't accept the state's challenge of her (he suggested racial reasons). Huh? He allowed jurors who had previous (negative) dealings with L.E. or who had family members who had those dealings or who had prior criminal records.

    It is said that a case is won or lost the moment a jury is selected. Judge Perry helped ensure that this jury was NOT death-qualified, he allowed jurors who said they did not want to judge, and a few other factors I found strange at the time.

    Therefore I hold JP responsible, at least partially. Then, when it was clear that there might be juror misconduct (jurors discussing the case amongst themselves), he ignored it.

    Sequestration (again, ironically) had the opposite effect of what was intended.

    YES, the jurors discussed this case during the trial.

    Shame on JP and shame on everyone who did not follow the rules. I never ever thought I'd see another travesty like what occurred in the O.J. trial. How naive I was. This was O.J. Part Deux.
     
  19. kathyn2

    kathyn2 Active Member

    Messages:
    3,031
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Madeline, I so agree with you. Judge Perry made many mistakes during this trial and the first one was putting together this jury. Allowing people on it that didn't believe in the DP. What kind of death qualified jury is that? People that can't judge? What kind of death qualified people is that?? Half these people said they didn't believe in the death penalty yet he berated them til they said they could consider it whatever that is. He was so worried that he wouldn't get enough people for the jury and was in such a big hurry to get the trial going and over with that it is a travesty. I blame this mess on him really. And the State let on a bunch of these types too without challenging them and getting rid of them. Allowing the 2 people on that can't judge was ridiculous. I think they also need to administer an intelligence test to potential jurors before they let them on a jury.
     
  20. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state tried to exclude people who simply did not believe in the DP or would not judge. JP is the one who ran this show and he is the one who corralled and in some cases slightly bullied prospective jurors onto the jury who were clearly not able to be fair/impartial. I blame JP about a hundred times more than anyone in the DA's office.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice