2011.07.11 Greta Van Sustern interview with Jury Foreperson

[goldenlover]

He said "good morning" and "good afternoon" every single day! They developed an ever lasting bond! Those evil ASA's didn't. It seems that a lot of this stuff was really just that simple.

JA and LDB were too smart for the jurors to follow while JB dumbed everything down. I thought that would be insulting to the jury but as it turns out they related to that. :/

As I was watching the trial, I also saw how JB was very polite and always acknowledged the jurors, as well as the witnesses. Things like that do play into a decision. We all know it shouldn't, but it does. Trial lawyers are taught that. Jurors are only human. How does that surprise anyone? JA and LDB could have been just as personable, as I see JA on his interviews now and he does not come across quite so harsh as he did during the trial. Why he took on that bullying persona during the trial, I don't know, but I am sure it hurt the outcome.

 

[back2back19]

As I was watching the trial, I also saw how JB was very polite and always acknowledged the jurors, as well as the witnesses. Things like that do play into a decision. We all know it shouldn't, but it does. Trial lawyers are taught that. Jurors are only human. How does that surprise anyone? JA and LDB could have been just as personable, as I see JA on his interviews now and he does not come across quite so harsh as he did during the trial. Why he took on that bullying persona during the trial, I don't know, but I am sure it hurt the outcome.

I just saw it differently. What you saw as personable, I saw as smarmy. What you saw as harsh with JA/LDB(mainly JA), I saw as passionate. And if it did hurt the outcome, well, that's just a shame. No lawyer should influence how you decide a verdict. My opinion of whether Casey is guilty or not has nothing to do with JB. They should be able to keep those separate IMO.

 

[lowens1975]

The jurors should all wear t shirts saying "I Didn't Connect The Dots".

OT: Just saw an auction for a bumper sticker on ebay:

Casey Anthony Duct Tape
Sticks even when the charges don't

 

[justbetweenus]

Exactly! I just get the feeling that he didn't like the prosecution because JA was such a strong figure. IMO, the prosecution really had it together. JA has a presence. Foreman went around and peed in all the corners. I just can't accept that he believes all the stuff that he's saying. I think his compulsion to be the biggest, baddest, best, smartest, yada yada yada, coupled with his pushy ways led to this horrible judgement. Or I should say, lack of judgement. I know there were a lot of factors. There were 12 people involved, but I think his 'leadership' was a huge part of how it all went down.

VAN SUSTEREN: You -- you were still (INAUDIBLE). You go into the room, and how did you get selected? What's the process? Did someone say, Hey, number 11, why don't you do it? Or did you vote on it? How did..?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was -- we really didn't vote on it. I walked in, and they said, We need to find out who the foreperson's going to be. And just about everybody said me. So you know, I was honored.
VAN SUSTEREN: There was no -- no one else said, I'd like to do it, or anything?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was -- there was one other person who did want to do it, and then everyone basically said, no (INAUDIBLE)

Pretty sure I heard the inaudible. It went something like this (paraphrasing) "there was one other person who did want to do it, but everyone basically said no they wanted me. She (the one that offered) said ok I will help you.

Bet it was #3

 

[Sustained]

As I was watching the trial, I also saw how JB was very polite and always acknowledged the jurors, as well as the witnesses. Things like that do play into a decision. We all know it shouldn't, but it does. Trial lawyers are taught that. Jurors are only human. How does that surprise anyone? JA and LDB could have been just as personable, as I see JA on his interviews now and he does not come across quite so harsh as he did during the trial. Why he took on that bullying persona during the trial, I don't know, but I am sure it hurt the outcome.

Remind me to contact JA & LDB and tell them to bring goody bags for the jurors next time. Also, I'll let them know before questioning any witness to say "Good Morning - how are you - how was your trip to Orlando - would you care for some coffee/water before we get started ? If the jury based their verdict at all on any of this nonsense, they deserve all of the negative publicity they are getting.

 

[goldenlover]

I just saw it differently. What you saw as personable, I saw as smarmy. What you saw as harsh with JA/LDB(mainly JA), I saw as passionate. And if it did hurt the outcome, well, that's just a shame. No lawyer should influence how you decide a verdict. My opinion of whether Casey is guilty or not has nothing to do with JB. They should be able to keep those separate IMO.

They should be able to keep it separate, but they can't and don't. That is exactly why JP instructed the spectators that they could show no emotion. He knows that even emotion from the audience can have an effect on the jurors. JA did not make points by snickering during JB's closing statements, I would be money on it. That was very unprofessional and the jury saw it. Otherwise, why would JP get so mad about it? The jury observes everyting in the courtroom and it all ends up playing into their decision, its just part of being a human being.

 

[Serjen]

As I was watching the trial, I also saw how JB was very polite and always acknowledged the jurors, as well as the witnesses. Things like that do play into a decision. We all know it shouldn't, but it does. Trial lawyers are taught that. Jurors are only human. How does that surprise anyone? JA and LDB could have been just as personable, as I see JA on his interviews now and he does not come across quite so harsh as he did during the trial. Why he took on that bullying persona during the trial, I don't know, but I am sure it hurt the outcome.

And if that's the case, then these Jurors deserve every bit of backlash they get. They are there to perform a job, not be coddled by the State or the Defense (the Judge did enough of that). If any single one of those jurors made their decision based on JB's phony "Good Mornings" and "Good Afternoons" and not the fact that they were trying a case dealing with a DEAD 2 YEAR OLD, then they should all hang their heads in shame and they deserve every bit of the verbal beating they are getting. IMO. What a disgrace.

And I really don't care for any explanations or reasoning about that train of thought, they were NOT there to judge the Defense team or the State team, or George, etc....the one thing they were SUPPOSED to judge (the evidence, circumstantial or not) is the one thing they didn't judge.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

The whole DNA argument just boils my blood. I would EXPECT ICA's DNA to be all over Caylee as she should have been her primary caretaker. The only place I would not have expected it was on the duct tape, and due to the exposure to the elements it may well have been....

Those 12 people should hang their heads in shame and quit talking now. Every time one of them attempts to justify what they have done they just reveal the depth of their ennui, ignorance and complacency even further.

I wish it was ennui. I wish it was complacency. Ignorance I can forgive if one endeavors against it. But this, this was nothing but self righteous, self absorbed stupidity. And all they want to do right now is self justify.

 

[goldenlover]

Remind me to contact JA & LDB and tell them to bring goody bags for the jurors next time. Also, I'll let them know before questioning any witness to say "Good Morning - how are you - how was your trip to Orlando - would you care for some coffee/water before we get started ? If the jury based their verdict at all on any of this nonsense, they deserve all of the negative publicity they are getting.

Its just a fact, ask any trial lawyer, it plays into their decision. People like to be acknowledged. The verdict was in the hands of the jurors, why not acknowledge them? It doesn't take much to pause and say a friendly good morning. They do not like to see little old ladys being laughed and being told there are not coyotes in Florida, when there are. They don't like to see an arrogant SA snickering at the other side during closing arguments. The jurors do not deserve being called uneducated and worse.

 

[back2back19]

They should be able to keep it separate, but they can't and don't. That is exactly why JP instructed the spectators that they could show no emotion. He knows that even emotion from the audience can have an effect on the jurors. JA did not make points by snickering during JB's closing statements, I would be money on it. That was very unprofessional and the jury saw it. Otherwise, why would JP get so mad about it? The jury observes everyting in the courtroom and it all ends up playing into their decision, its just part of being a human being.

I never said he made any points with the snickering. I didn't think it was appropriate but again, these people should be able to separate. Evidently they were able to do so with all the eye rolling, head shakes, muttering that JB was doing. If you can do it with one, you can do it with the other. It's like juror 11 said, the case was about a dead little girl, not about who was nicest.

But we can agree to disagree on this!

 

[Sustained]

They should be able to keep it separate, but they can't and don't. That is exactly why JP instructed the spectators that they could show no emotion. He knows that even emotion from the audience can have an effect on the jurors. JA did not make points by snickering during JB's closing statements, I would be money on it. That was very unprofessional and the jury saw it. Otherwise, why would JP get so mad about it? The jury observes everyting in the courtroom and it all ends up playing into their decision, its just part of being a human being.

And JB's "cut the cheese" remark wasn't unprofessional ... how about his reaction to JA's snickering (which I agree was uncalled for) ... how about JB's not being able to ask a non-leading question ? Doesn't that demonstrate a lack of professionalism if you can't ask a leading question to which an objection would be launched ? And then to ask the same leading question again and again ? How about CM's condescending attitude toward witnesses ? If that wasn't unprofessional, I don't know the definition. Except for JA's snickering at JB's closing, the State was a model of professionalism.

 

[suzihawk]

As I was watching the trial, I also saw how JB was very polite and always acknowledged the jurors, as well as the witnesses. Things like that do play into a decision. We all know it shouldn't, but it does. Trial lawyers are taught that. Jurors are only human. How does that surprise anyone? JA and LDB could have been just as personable, as I see JA on his interviews now and he does not come across quite so harsh as he did during the trial. Why he took on that bullying persona during the trial, I don't know, but I am sure it hurt the outcome.

JA and LDB acted like the professionals they are. I guess since Baez didn't have any professionalism to fall back on he needed to concentrate on being 'personable'. Quite frankly, it came across as smarmy to me. This wasn't a damn afternoon tea party, FFS. It was a trial to hold a murdering mother accountable for killing her defenseless child. As always, my opinion.

 

[imagirlgeek]

They should be able to keep it separate, but they can't and don't. That is exactly why JP instructed the spectators that they could show no emotion. He knows that even emotion from the audience can have an effect on the jurors. JA did not make points by snickering during JB's closing statements, I would be money on it. That was very unprofessional and the jury saw it. Otherwise, why would JP get so mad about it? The jury observes everyting in the courtroom and it all ends up playing into their decision, its just part of being a human being.

I think I don't understand the rules. Granted, this is honestly the 1st trial I've ever watched. But is it all okay as long as the other side doesn't object to it? That's a real question...I really don't know. Because it looked to me as though JB smirked through most of the trial. And then straight up called the prosecution witnesses and evidence, lies and fraud. This really does confuse me. If JA had objected to those statements, and called out JB on his facial expressions, would JB have been reprimanded? I just assumed JA didn't call him out because he thought the jury would see through it. But maybe the defense has a different set of rules?

Again, my questions here are real questions, not rhetorical.

 

[goldenlover]

JA and LDB acted like the professionals they are. I guess since Baez didn't have any professionalism to fall back on he needed to concentrate on being 'personable'. Quite frankly, it came across as smarmy to me. This wasn't a damn afternoon tea party, FFS. It was a trial to hold a murdering mother accountable for killing her defenseless child. As always, my opinion.

Obviously the jurors did not think it is "smarmy". I am not saying it was right or wrong, just that it is a fact that the personalities of the attorneys does play a role. EVERYTHING plays a role. Just like the stupid guy that gave JA the finger, the judge said that if the jury had seen it it could have caused a mistrial. That is why it was so serious. That gesture by a spectator should have no role in the jurys decision either, but the judge knew it could, because everything does, not just for this jury, but all jurys.

 

[crucibelle]

Someone will have to help them get into the shirts. :floorlaugh:

"We couldn't wear these shirts because no one told us step-by-step how to put them on."

 

[LambChop]

Before the trial HHJP said he wanted everything out before the trial. No surprises. No trial by ambush. He did not want the jury to be in and out like pop tarts. What did HHJP get from defense. Surprises. Ambush. And a jury that ended up being "pop-tarts".

I find it interesting that the Florida Bar annouced that it is investigating claims they heard from the news about what happened in court and HHJP's threats of contempt of court. It gets HHJP out of a very uncomfortable position of reporting it to the bar himself. Now he just has to answer their questions and let the Florida Bar decide what to do without lifing a finger. jmo

 

[crucibelle]

I think people would be surprised to hear in detail how many juries arrived at their verdicts and how often their reasoning has nothing to do with the law or the evidence...we just don't get to hear it, unless it is a trial the media shows an interest in. Also if the public is satisfied with a verdict, the need to know the thinking of the jury is not there, only when people are not satisfied.

I wish the jurors had not spoken out, personally, but if they all refused, there would still be accusations of "jury misconduct" or "tampering" or as we've seen, people accusing them of actually accepting bribes...sure, maybe they are not coming off as super intelligent under this microscope, but look around, go run a few errands, count your change, check your receipts...average folks, IMO...

BBM. That still does not make it right or ok.

 

[Nefriahaia]

And if that's the case, then these Jurors deserve every bit of backlash they get. They are there to perform a job, not be coddled by the State or the Defense (the Judge did enough of that). If any single one of those jurors made their decision based on JB's phony "Good Mornings" and "Good Afternoons" and not the fact that they were trying a case dealing with a DEAD 2 YEAR OLD, then they should all hang their heads in shame and they deserve every bit of the verbal beating they are getting. IMO. What a disgrace.

And I really don't care for any explanations or reasoning about that train of thought, they were NOT there to judge the Defense team or the State team, or George, etc....the one thing they were SUPPOSED to judge (the evidence, circumstantial or not) is the one thing they didn't judge.

 

[LambChop]

BBM. That still does not make it right or ok.

Maybe that is why this trial happened the way it did. We need to take a look at how people are judging others. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

Obviously the jurors did not think it is "smarmy". I am not saying it was right or wrong, just that it is a fact that the personalities of the attorneys does play a role. EVERYTHING plays a role. Just like the stupid guy that gave JA the finger, the judge said that if the jury had seen it it could have caused a mistrial. That is why it was so serious. That gesture by a spectator should have no role in the jurys decision either, but the judge knew it could, because everything does, not just for this jury, but all jurys.

Maybe we feel the way we do about Baez because we saw Baez smirking, we knew his OS was outrageous and a lie, we heard his inept questioning of the witnesses, we saw him put CA on the stand and heard him walk her through deliberate perjury, we heard the judge lecture Baez over and over about sanctions, we saw the judge "teaching" Baez the rules of evidence throughout the whole trial, we heard sustained over and over again and we heard objection overruled over and over, and we heard him over and over try to twist forensic evidence. And maybe it was because our skin crawled when he smarmed up to the jury everyday with his please please like me smile. And finally it may have been about him posing at the podium, using overly dramatically gestures - that we hadn't seen before and laughed because we knew he'd been practising them in the mirror...the list goes on and on. And anyone who thinks he is brilliant needs to go and read his bar history and read what his peers have to say about him.