The Verdict Waiting Room #2

[tarjessi]

I think so. I think it would be unusual for the jury in a murder trial not to be asking questions.

So my uneasiness at the clarification is most likely due to my lack of knowledge about the trial process as such. I hope this means that they are assessing the evidence as thoroughly as possible and that is the reason behind the clarification. Thank you Alioop

 

[tarjessi]

*joins everyone else at the edge of their seats waiting for a verdict*

 

[they'll get you]

I have been a chatterbox tonight :facepalm: must go to bed:countsheep:

HoolyDooly!! Hey wait for me! fftobed:

G'night everyone. Tomorrow IS the day.

:candle:


We're taking those deep breaths Doc 'just breath'. :deepbreaths:

 

[Mumma Bear]

Pretty sure they know what they are doing.....

And I would like to know why they are doing it!

 

[Seeking]

Professional jurors can be common people too. Just employ them for longer than they are now..

My opinion is that, if you have any one person (regardless of level of training) that is known to have the job of professional juror they are at great risk of being bribed or other form of corruption. Fresh jurors from the community for each new trial greatly reduces the risk of this happening because they are unknown representatives of the community.

 

[alioop]

I always thought the verdict would take a few days and I reckon there is a good chance for tomorrow afternoon. But I have been wrong before like when I said there was no way he would testify! But I was more than happy to lose that bet.

 

[spratsmum]

Talking to a lady at the hairdressers today, she was a juror on a murder trial, took them 8 days to reach a verdict.

 

[BreakingNews]

Professional jurors is an alien concept in Australia. Defendants are judged by there peers.


Sent from my ZTE T81 using Tapatalk

 

[JK673]

Professional jurors is an alien concept in Australia. Defendants are judged by there peers.


Sent from my ZTE T81 using Tapatalk

It is a shame if you have people on a jury who no matter how things are explained they still don't get it.....now THAT is becoming more prevalent in this society
Maybe a unanimous vote needs to be changed to 11/12 to cater for that

 

[Mr Marple]

Upon leaving court today I found myself standing behind Todd Fuller QC waiting to the cross the road.

I was so tempted to just tap him on the shoulder and hi-five the man. But I thought better of it and resisted.

 

[KG1]

My opinion is that, if you have any one person (regardless of level of training) that is known to have the job of professional juror they are at great risk of being bribed or other form of corruption. Fresh jurors from the community for each new trial greatly reduces the risk of this happening because they are unknown representatives of the community.

Back in the 80's and 90's in Victoria I was called up for jury service a couple of times, but was ineligible to serve on a jury. On one occasion I was still a law student and on the other occasion, I was working in a law firm. Both these activities precluded one from eligibility for jury service. In 2000 I was again called up and made the cut, only to be challenged as I walked to the jury box. My job, which had to be fully stated to the court, was the reason I believe I was challenged by the defence. I believe that the positions which precluded me in the 80s and 90s no longer preclude in Victoria. After all we are still members of the community. I would not like to see professional juries, because then there would be professional fees for them and likely open to corruption IMO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I was a bit worried today. I get the feeling that there's a couple of jurors who are having problems with reasonable doubt, ie it's not ALL doubt, and we'll end up with a hung jury and have to go through it all again. I have everything crossed that we'll see justice served tomorrow.

I'm a little bit scared but i'm okaykay:

Your sister to your left side looks also "a little bit very" scared - is she okay too (think not!)?

 

[Her Honour]

Just catching up after...washing the lunchbox Yet another mundane thing I can't approach straightforwardly.

Just thinking on the requested clarification. I know we're indulging in quite useless speculation, but for what it's worth IMO:

1. I think it's QUITE revealing that only one juror hung back in the courtroom, if only from a group dynamics perspective. Leaving him/her behind could be interpreted as a kind of 'got that now?' thing;
2. Could be that there is one piece of circumstantial evidence one or more are stuck on. Unlikely to be the scratches IMO, but take for example the blood in the car. Just like on here, some jurors may think the ONLY rational inference to be drawn from that evidence is that Allison bled in there on the 19th/20th, thereby proving the fact that she was violently assaulted, by the accused, at that time. Other/s might think there is another rational and innocent reason for it being there and that if that is more likely than the assault theory, they are to err on the side of the accused's innocence;
3. If that's the case, I don't think it speaks against a conviction, for there are many pieces of individual, circumstantial evidence to be sifted through in that fashion and added together.

I hope that makes sense?

 

[Susan12]

One of the crazy rules is that the judge cannot explain what reasonable doubt is, they have to work it out for themselves.

That is seriously crazy. They don't even say that it doesn't mean all doubt is required to be removed? In a circumstantial case with no confession 100% cannot be obtained, I hope they realise that because some people think it means all doubt.

 

[jens]

I had some unusual plants growing in my garden and decided to let them grow so I might determine what they were. Anyway, after being away for a couple of days I glanced out at the window this morning and I have beautiful sunflowers looking at me. Even though I didn't know her I have been following this case and thinking about Allison a lot lately. I believe the sunflowers are a sure sign!

 

[ThaiBali]

Yep, it's like a lucky dip. Just need one "know it all" who can't concede a point.

I know you can't judge a book by it's cover, but they didn't look like a bunch of idiots to me, so hopefully they are cluey and are just being thorough!

As in the Casey Anthony trial a bunch of rednecks. Some of the Jurors were in hiding for a long time. They preferred the Defense team only because they were pleasant to them greeting them in the mornings, a goodbye and thank you at the end of the day, a little joke here or there. The Jurors just wanted to get out of there. They were sequestered and many arguments were had.
I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

[Ippygal]

Please let today be the day!!!!!!

 

[FigTree]

I cant believe its so late...
I'll never get up - better put the alarm on 'blast'
fftobed:

Im still thinking Wednesday for a verdict.

I might not wake up till then....
noooooooooo!!!
G'night sleuthers

 

[Tigerlily75]

As in the Casey Anthony trial a bunch of rednecks. Some of the Jurors were in hiding for a long time. They preferred the Defense team only because they were pleasant to them greeting them in the mornings, a goodbye and thank you at the end of the day, a little joke here or there. The Jurors just wanted to get out of there. They were sequestered and many arguments were had.
I'm cautiously optimistic.

From what I've read of the Casey Anthony trial, the prosecution did a botch job. They offered no plausible scenario they could use (within the court room - the jury can't just make up their own scenarios) and the prosecutor used too many words like "perhaps" and "maybe" and "might have". A juror said they gave them nothing to work with. In a legal sense, they could not convict "beyond reasonable doubt". I know it seemed preposterous ... but the prosecution has to present a reasonable plausible scenario that goes beyond reasonable doubt, and they just didn't do it.

If it's any comfort, Casey Anthony is essentially a prisoner. She can't leave the house and is the most hated woman in America. Cold comfort, but it's something.

One thing I really dislike about the US system is that jurors are named after. I think they should always be anonymous. No one should be subjected to death threats after doing their service.

 

[MadDoc]

My opinion is that, if you have any one person (regardless of level of training) that is known to have the job of professional juror they are at great risk of being bribed or other form of corruption. Fresh jurors from the community for each new trial greatly reduces the risk of this happening because they are unknown representatives of the community.

Maybe one model could be: one "professional" juror in each trial, who has some legal training (a job for a senior law student perhaps?), who acts as the "foreman" and helps in the ins and outs of deliberation, but who is sworn to be impartial and does not actually vote for guilty/ not guilty. And twelve ordinary people like we have now. Just thinking out loud - early in the morning and not enough coffee in the bloodstream yet.