2011.05.20 On a Scale of 1 to 10 How do you Feel About this Jury?

[luvmygarden]

Is there any court appointed security in the room with the jurors during deliberation?
Where do the alternates go, are they just waiting in their rooms till it has ended and are free to go?

 

[PeteyGirl]

BBM - If you read the quote from Paris' blog in your post, Paris is saying the total opposite of your belief.

Paris clearly believes that there was Jury Tampering involved in this verdict with her reference to the Jury members being "dirty", rather than "terminal idiots".

"The chances that you are all dirty…far exceeds the chances that you are all terminal idiots. No one is as stupid as you expect us to believe you are."

Yeah, I got that from Paris' blog.

What I'm saying is that I am reluctant (personally) to believe there was jury tampering. I believe they were terminal idiots.

Jury tampering is a definite possibility, just difficult for me to believe that it succeeded to the point it did (if it happened), that's all

I DO believe they are as "stupid" as they expect us to believe. I hesitate to use the word "stupid" as it is extremely derogative. I don't believe the jury thought they conducted themselves stupidly at all. I sense that they believe their own rationalizations and nonsense.

In fact, I even hesitate to pronounce the jurists as "terminal idiots" in the first place. They are a slice of life. A representative sample of the populace. This does not diminish the grave inadequacy of their verdict, or the way they reached it. What scares me is this was they best they could do.

This is where Paris and I diverge. I am willing to believe people are that "stupid". And that perhaps they were selected specifically for that quality.

That doesn't explain how the state missed this. I think they missed this because they weren't looking for it. You don't see what you aren't looking for.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Is there any court appointed security in the room with the jurors during deliberation?
Where do the alternates go, are they just waiting in their rooms till it has ended and are free to go?

The alternate were not aware that they were alternates until deliberations were begun.

If a jury needs a court appointed security in the room with them to prevent them from violating their agreement to follow the rules, then we need to revamp this system. They were supposed to be adults, which implies they were supposed to understand the very good reasons for not discussing their thoughts prior to deliberations.

 

[PeteyGirl]

BBM

..and the 2 who initially voted guilty ---on their 1st 10-2 round ( which was by a show of hands!!!---not secret! ) voted GUILTY --of the most serious charge, 1st degree MURDER, death penalty eligible.

..how on earth does a person go from their belief that a person is guilty of MURDER to-----okay, not guilty ( on even the lowest charge--child abuse!! ) in a matter of hours?

..the "voice of reason" on this jury, was their foreman ( JF on greta---"and they all picked ME!" ) -------and he didn't have a clue.

ETA-------and for anyone IN pinellas county as school is resuming-----this braniac IS the health and/P.E. teacher of someones kids.

BBM: This astounds and confounds me as well.

We're talking ten hours here. Ten hours of deliberations after a six week trial.

A carefully, and conservatively (IMO) presentation by the state, including days and days of scientifically derived evidence (FWIW), completely tossed aside, per their own words.

It seems as though "reasonable doubt" is not all that difficult to create.

That implies a collective misunderstanding, on the part of they jury. "If I don't understand it, if I can't connect it, it isn't valid."

 

[runsdeep]

what burdick feared most was that common sense would not prevail...

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM: This astounds and confounds me as well.

We're talking ten hours here. Ten hours of deliberations after a six week trial.

A carefully, and conservatively (IMO) presentation by the state, including days and days of scientifically derived evidence (FWIW), completely tossed aside, per their own words.

It seems as though "reasonable doubt" is not all that difficult to create.

That implies a collective misunderstanding, on the part of they jury. "If I don't understand it, if I can't connect it, it isn't valid."

Sure - ten hours total, less a dinner break, a breakfast break, two coffee breaks and a lunch break - plus those special breaks. I'm guessing the total amount of time this jury actually spent in deliberations was more like five hours.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Sure - ten hours total, less a dinner break, a breakfast break, two coffee breaks and a lunch break - plus those special breaks. I'm guessing the total amount of time this jury actually spent in deliberations was more like five hours.

As with most others, the post verdict statements by the jurors have been unimpressive to me.

As for the short deliberation time, I think that even if the jury had spent only 2 hours in deliberation and had come back with a guilty verdict on all counts, that the majority of people would have been fine with that, and some would even have said, gee what took them so long.

Even if they had spent 2 weeks deliberating, and came to the verdicts they did, the majority would still have been unhappy.

If this jury did get it wrong, they join hundreds of other juries who also got it wrong (take a look at the innocence project). Our system is far from perfect. This jury will sit side by side with the OJ jury in the court of public opinion, as the juries in two of the most high profile cases in history who got it wrong.

 

[NavySubMom]

The alternate were not aware that they were alternates until deliberations were begun.

If a jury needs a court appointed security in the room with them to prevent them from violating their agreement to follow the rules, then we need to revamp this system. They were supposed to be adults, which implies they were supposed to understand the very good reasons for not discussing their thoughts prior to deliberations.

As I remember it, the ALTERNATE (#16?) Russ Huekler was the 1st to speak on that fateful day. He really sounded to me like he had been discussing this case with the others, but he was NOT present during the deliberations (not that they deliberated). I clearly remember this alternate stating things immediatley after the verdict that made me think the jurors as a total HAD to have been discussing this case before the deliberations started. I really wish one of them would come forward with the absolute truth of what went on with that jury during this whole trial. Something is very rotten in Denmark. IMO, MOO. etc.

 

[cityslick]

As I remember it, the ALTERNATE (#16?) was the 1st to speak on that fateful day. Wasn't he saying things like "we" this and "we" that. I remember wondering at the time, HOW DOES THIS ALTERNATE KNOW WHAT THE OTHERS WERE THINKING since he was NOT present during the deliberations (not that they deliberated). I have to go to the doctor just now, but I will try to find a link later. I clearly remember this alternate stating things immediatley after the verdict that made me think the jurors as a total HAD to have been discussing this case before the deliberations started. I really wish one of them would come forward with the absolute truth of what went on with that jury during this whole trial. Something is very rotten in Denmark. IMO, MOO. etc.

They were obviously talking about the case before deliberations. The fact that it was 10-2 on the first vote means that 10 people (over 80%) already thought going in that she wasn't guilty of 1st degree. Everyone focuses on the 2, but it's better to focus on the 10? For as much a slam dunk case as everyone thought the prosecution has, over 80% of the jury didn't think she was guilty when the first vote was taken. That's a very high percentage.

I would of asked the jurors (the original 10) what was their thought process going into the first vote. What were they seeing (or not seeing) during the trial that made them lean NG right off the bat.

As for talking about the case during the trial (something they are not supposed to do), perhaps sequestration needs to be looked at as obviously I think that played a factor. Splitting the jury up in different hotels is unrealistic from a logistic and financial sense. But I don't know how you guarantee that the case isn't going to be talked about while you are sequestered, especially for as long as this jury was.

 

[NavySubMom]

They were obviously talking about the case before deliberations. The fact that it was 10-2 on the first vote means that 10 people (over 80%) already thought going in that she wasn't guilty of 1st degree. Everyone focuses on the 2, but it's better to focus on the 10? For as much a slam dunk case as everyone thought the prosecution has, over 80% of the jury didn't think she was guilty when the first vote was taken. That's a very high percentage.

I would of asked the jurors (the original 10) what was their thought process going into the first vote. What were they seeing (or not seeing) during the trial that made them lean NG right off the bat.

As for talking about the case during the trial (something they are not supposed to do), perhaps sequestration needs to be looked at as obviously I think that played a factor. Splitting the jury up in different hotels is unrealistic from a logistic and financial sense. But I don't know how you guarantee that the case isn't going to be talked about while you are sequestered, especially for as long as this jury was.

I agree cityslick about the sequestration having an effect. Just wanted to mention I did edit my original post because I could not quickly find a link to Russ Huekler very first phone interview, and though the alternate may not have said "we" this&that, his whole interview clearly sounded like this jury, or some folks in it, had talked in a big way about the evidence and their potential verdict before the deliberations, since he was not a part of the deliberations.
IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[MissJames]

As I remember it, the ALTERNATE (#16?) Russ Huekler was the 1st to speak on that fateful day. He really sounded to me like he had been discussing this case with the others, but he was NOT present during the deliberations (not that they deliberated). I clearly remember this alternate stating things immediatley after the verdict that made me think the jurors as a total HAD to have been discussing this case before the deliberations started. I really wish one of them would come forward with the absolute truth of what went on with that jury during this whole trial. Something is very rotten in Denmark. IMO, MOO. etc.

He used the term "we". We thought ,we knew,etc.....So clearly they discussed it.

I agree and have stated often ,one of them needs to come forward with a true play by play . I think some of them were duped by one or more of the other jurors. I would be mad as he77 and ready to point fingers. I just don't understand the dynamics of this jury , but something is definitely rotten.

 

[krkrjx]

I agree cityslick about the sequestration having an effect. Just wanted to mention I did edit my original post because I could not quickly find a link to Russ Huekler very first phone interview, and though the alternate may not have said "we" this&that, his whole interview clearly sounded like this jury, or some folks in it, had talked in a big way about the evidence and their potential verdict before the deliberations, since he was not a part of the deliberations.
IMO, MOO, etc.

He did say "we" and I agree with your assessment. This alternate's initial statement is the main reason I believe the jury had been discussing the case while sequestered and prior to deliberations. Many went into the deliberations room with their minds already made up. The few who did not go along immediately with Not Guilty had their minds changed quickly. And we are not talking a quick change of mind on a minimal charge. We are talking about going from guilty of Murder One all the way down to not guilty on any of the felony charges.

Had it taken at least a few days to chip away at the initial decision of those who voted guilty, I might be persuaded to understand. But even one juror agreeing to do a one-eighty without intense discussion, I just cannot wrap my mind around.

I can't speak for anyone else since I do not know their motives, but if I had been one of those few, I would not have been so quick to concede because, IMO, a hung jury is always better than allowing a murderer to go free.

 

[NavySubMom]

He did say "we" and I agree with your assessment. This alternate's initial statement is the main reason I believe the jury had been discussing the case while sequestered and prior to deliberations. Many went into the deliberations room with their minds already made up. The few who did not go along immediately with Not Guilty had their minds changed quickly. And we are not talking a quick change of mind on a minimal charge. We are talking about going from guilty of Murder One all the way down to not guilty on any of the felony charges.

Had it taken at least a few days to chip away at the initial decision of those who voted guilty, I might be persuaded to understand. But even one juror agreeing to do a one-eighty without intense discussion, I just cannot wrap my mind around.

I can't speak for anyone else since I do not know their motives, but if I had been one of those few, I would not have been so quick to concede because, IMO, a hung jury is always better than allowing a murderer to go free.

Glad you and the other posters remembered the same "we" as I did, I remember being stunned that NONE of the jurors came into the media room to talk after the verdict, then I remember hearing this alternate phone interview, and I was shocked at what he was saying and immediately felt this jury had definitely been talking during the trial, which IMO is Juror Misconduct and a very serious violation. I half think this may be why no other jurors have spoken out, I think they are aware of this misconduct and are afraid they will spill the beans. IMO ONLY, the Foreman and Jennifer Ford may have said to the others, IMO thinking they were the "smartest" and could get around post-interviews and not say the "wrong" things, something along the lines of, "don't worry, we (Mr. Foreman and JF) will handle all of the interviews and we will set everyone straight about how we came to this verdict." IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[krkrjx]

Is there any court appointed security in the room with the jurors during deliberation?
Where do the alternates go, are they just waiting in their rooms till it has ended and are free to go?

There would be security in the area but not in the room. No one is allowed in the deliberations room but the 12 jurors. The alternates remained sequestered in their hotel until after the verdict. This is in case one of the 12 became ill or otherwise unable to follow through to the end. At that point an alternate would have been sent in to deliberate.

Well, in this case, just sent in.

 

[deanna82437]

I just wish there had been more public outrage about this jury early on. I know there was some, but not to the extent that there is now. I totally understand why as most everyone was in a state of shock from the NG verdict and probably unable to speak. IMO even the defendant and DT were as shocked as the rest of us. IMO again, their verdict is a shame and disgrace to this country and the justice system. Very sad !!

 

[krkrjx]

RE that alternate who was the first to speak out: I bet he was pizzed when he was informed he was an alternate.

There is some satisfaction to be had from that.

 

[krkrjx]

I just wish there had been more public outrage about this jury early on. I know there was some, but not to the extent that there is now. I totally understand why as most everyone was in a state of shock from the NG verdict and probably unable to speak. IMO even the defendant and DT were as shocked as the rest of us. IMO again, their verdict is a shame and disgrace to this country and the justice system. Very sad !!

There definitely should be public outrage about this verdict. But what I think holds most people back from speaking their mind about it is the idea that in this country juries are sacred. Their verdict is always final. Weren't we told by the talking heads and others that the jury had spoken and we must respect their decision?? And as a society, we tend to fall for whatever we are told. Even when disagreeing, few citizens take any serious action to fix things that are broken. I do not blame society for that because we have all been fed the idea that "you can't fight city hall." City hall meaning any government entity.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

There definitely should be public outrage about this verdict. But what I think holds most people back from speaking their mind about it is the idea that in this country juries are sacred. Their verdict is always final. Weren't we told by the talking heads and others that the jury had spoken and we must respect their decision?? And as a society, we tend to fall for whatever we are told. Even when disagreeing, few citizens take any serious action to fix things that are broken. I do not blame society for that because we have all been fed the idea that "you can't fight city hall." City hall meaning any government entity.

Found this article that upholds the sentiments that you and I seem to share re the questionable sanctity of the jury:

"Many commentators have said we must respect the findings of the jury and not second guess their decision. That is pure baloney. If we are to maintain our system of laws, we should respect the jury system. It is far better than carrying out lynchings in banana republics. But as demonstrated when juries convict people who are later exonerated by DNA evidence, juries are far from perfect. We have no obligation to pretend that they are by saying we respect their verdict however mindless it may be.

In the Casey Anthony case, the jury failed at its job, and a murderer went free."

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessle...Anthony-GretaVanSusteren/2011/07/13/id/403503

 

[yolorado]

Found this article that upholds the sentiments that you and I seem to share re the questionable sanctity of the jury:

"Many commentators have said we must respect the findings of the jury and not second guess their decision. That is pure baloney. If we are to maintain our system of laws, we should respect the jury system. It is far better than carrying out lynchings in banana republics. But as demonstrated when juries convict people who are later exonerated by DNA evidence, juries are far from perfect. We have no obligation to pretend that they are by saying we respect their verdict however mindless it may be.

In the Casey Anthony case, the jury failed at its job, and a murderer went free."

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessle...Anthony-GretaVanSusteren/2011/07/13/id/403503

I've heard people justify the KC jury's verdict by saying, "Oh well, juries get it wrong all the time. There are scads of innocents in jail." They seem to think that makes it ok when the guilty go free. It's two cases of the same problem, we certainly want to work toward a system that keeps innocent accused out of jail, but on the other hand, we need a system that puts away the guilty. Failure to do either miscarries justice with terrible consequences for the truly innocent. Look at the innocence project, but also look at what happened to Jaycee Dugard when a guilty person went free.

 

[krkrjx]

I've heard people justify the KC jury's verdict by saying, "Oh well, juries get it wrong all the time. There are scads of innocents in jail." They seem to think that makes it ok when the guilty go free. It's two cases of the same problem, we certainly want to work toward a system that keeps innocent accused out of jail, but on the other hand, we need a system that puts away the guilty. Failure to do either miscarries justice with terrible consequences for the truly innocent. Look at the innocence project, but also look at what happened to Jaycee Dugard when a guilty person went free.

Yep, they even say it's better to let 100 guilty go free than to convict one innocent.

But one thing that has to be considered is that when a person is convicted they have recourse to get the verdict looked at. The appeal process is not an easy one, nor a swift one, but at least it is something that might lead toward a conviction being overturned. When a guilty person goes free, there is no recourse. The state cannot retry the case and cannot appeal the verdict. A jury verdict is final. Always.

Or is it? I recall that au pair trial out east a few years back. She was found guilty of murder (I do not recall which degree) but the judge reduced the verdict and then proceeded to sentence her to time served. I still do not understand how that judge was able to do that. I mean, are jury verdicts final or not? It is not like that was a case of jury misconduct. As far as I know, it was just a judge not agreeing with a verdict, so he changed it to a conviction on a lesser charge.