- Jan 2, 2004
- Reaction score
This jury was brought in from another county 200 mi away. They have to find jurors who can be away from their lives for 2 weeks, sequestered in a hotel. It doesn't require no knowledge of the case, but it does require the ability to put aside any opinions and judge the case based only on the evidence presented in court.
Why didn't they get jurors from a larger town? I think larger cities may produce more jurors with a more enlightened knowledge and vocabulary needed in cases like this.
It seems even the Foreman believed if they were not unanimous for Guilt then he was to be deemed Not Guilty and that is why he wrote that on the verdict form. It is downright scary how anyone could comprehend the jury instructions that way.
It seems none of them have ever been jurors on a murder case or at least one of them would have chimed in to at least tell the Foreman they had to be unanimous one way or the other to put it on the verdict form. If none of them didn't know more than he did then it was the blind leading the blind.
I thought the Anthony jurors were bad but they cant hold a candle to this jury. At least the CA jury knew the meaning of unanimous.
In the cases where I served as a juror we weren't ever told that we had to have no knowledge about the case but what we had to swear to do is only consider the evidence entered in the trial from the witness stand to come to our decision.
I think it is a very bad requirement for any trial if they demand the selected jurors know nothing at all about any case. The only way they can do that is if they find the type that never reads or watches the news and couldn't care less about what is happening in the world or in their own community. To me those would tend to be more like the CSI type jurors wanting everything to be like an one hour fictional show.