I just watched the entire dateline episode on their website. All in all, they did a very good presentation.
My head was spinning, though, with the juror said that them considering her behavior during the 31 days would have been emotional and they weren't supposed to use their emotions in their decision. Hello? How is judging someone's behavior an emotional decision?
Jury instructions should include definitions and examples for "emotional decisions" and "deliberation". Two definitions that would have done well for these jurors to have heard and had in writing to refer to in the jury room. It should be on the wall in nice framed posters.
Some of the THs and reporters are saying that the general public needs to calm down and leave these jurors alone. I agree. They did their civic duty and they should be able to go back to live their lives without harassment or threats. However, the ones that do choose to go out and give interviews should not be surprised when they are questioned on how/why they arrived at the decision that they did. So far, I have not yet seen one reporter really ask pertinent questions or point out to any of them how wrong what some of them are saying is - such as when they say there was no motive or cause of death. The reporters just let them say this and then not say a word back or ask them did they not hear they are not to consider that in their deliberations.
The outcome of this trial and some of what these jurors are coming out and
saying makes me even more determined to make sure I do not in any way try to ever get out of jury duty if I am ever called.
My brother once served on a jury that was a capital murder case. He ended up being selected to be the foreman. He told me that once back in the jury room they took an initial vote. All said guilty. Instead of immediately putting their decision on the verdict forms, my brother said they decided to go through all the testimony and evidence to make sure before they finalized their vote. They took 3 days. Then they voted again and the vote was still unanimous. I asked him would you have done the same thing if everyone said Not Guilty. He said yes. He said the state and the defense took the time to present their cases to us for over 3 weeks. The least we owed to both sides was to make sure we gave it the time and attention they all deserved to make the right decision. Too bad he wasn't on this jury.
IMO
BBM.
First, your brother is wonderful. The one time I was selected for jury duty(surprisingly, since I was working in a law firm at the time) made me so proud of the judicial system. We ALL took our duty seriously, and even though we all agreed on our verdict, we literally re-read ALL the testimony. Granted, we weren't sequestered, and that trial took all of 2 days in court and another 1-1/2 days of deliberation! Yes, we took approximately the same amount of time these jurors did to deliberate on a trial that took a teensy, tiny fraction of the amount of time to present to us. But that was many, many years ago. I'm afraid the general public has been changed dramatically since then. :sick:
Secondly, I completely agree with your assessment of the interviews and the lack of hard questions and facts being presented to these jurors. And if I hear one more TH backpedalling on themselves and talking about problems with the prosecution's case I'm going to hurl a brick through my TV. This verdict is most assuredly NOT due to a lack in the State's case, nor due to any lack in LE, IMO.
But, finally, I must disagree about leaving these jurors alone. Note that I most assuredly do NOT want or need to know their names or where they live. But I DO want these jurors -- and the public at large -- to face up to the mind-boggling failure of this jury to give serious heed to their job as jurors and to pay full attention to the instructions and evidence given to them.
I do not know whether they were too lazy or just too stupid, and I don't care. I just know I never, never, never, NEVER, EVER want to have another jury like them hear ANY criminal trial in the U.S.
If there's any good to come of this, it's 1) the attention to crimes against children not being given proper weight in our society up to now; 2) the extremely urgent problem of poor education in the U.S. and the lack of willingness of too many to attend to their jury duty as a requirement for the privilege of U.S. citizenship (whether by birth or by immigration); and 3) the need to closely examine the over-reaching effect of political correctness and reluctance to recognize and JUDGE those people who can and will commit unspeakable horrors against innocents (and in this I'm including not just ICA and CA, but also the entire DT).
Something is horrifyingly broken in our world -- and it needs to be fixed pronto.
Excuse me now while I go throw up - again. :sick:
