So here's something I don't quite understand that maybe someone can explain - whats the purpose of not allowing the jury to discuss the testimony of each day with one another? I, obviously, get why you wouldn't talk with people outside the jury, but since they must come to a conclusion together eventually, why doesn't it make sense to have them debate thoughts thru the trial? If it was a total blind vote during deliberations and that was that, I'd get it. But since they are supposed to come to an agreement on guilt together, why not thru the trial?
So one jury member can't be constantly pushing his interpretation of the various testimony and evidence on the rest of them. They're all supposed to bring their life experience and opinion into the trial, there shouldn't be one person convincing the rest of them how they should think and look at each piece of evidence as it is introduced.
When that happens, it also colors the way the jury continues to think about the evidence that's still being released. They think, oh we had this discussion about George the other day, and now that I think about it, he does seem sort of suspicious. This bit of evidence kind of confirms everyone's suspicions.
Then when perhaps something more exonerating comes about, they ignore it. Then they discuss it again and reinforce each other's opinions. Which was what appears to have happened here.
Basically while doing that, it isn't twelve different people bringing their opinions and life experience into the verdict fresh because some of those people have already been talked out of their opinions.
It's a couple more vocal people pushing their life experience on everyone else for a period of weeks or maybe months. Especially in the cliquish atmosphere of sequestration.
I kind of think that's what happened here. That blathering foreman pushed his bias and his point of view on the rest of them and convinced them way before the verdict that they should be considering the evidence the same way he did. That's why they all seemed to have their minds made up way before the verdict and all that was left for them to do, was, as Jennifer Ford put it, think about looking at evidence and then shrug and say "not my problem, no cause of death."
Honestly, I think that if the jury makes a mistake that's so severe that a criminal defendant who was convicted of a crime gets their conviction thrown out and a whole new trial based on the jurors' actions alone, the jurors who blatantly disregarded the rules should be held responsible. It isn't fun play time, it isn't junior high, "Ashton was putting us all to sleep, but Baez was sort of hot" (Jennifer Ford was actually quoted as posting that on her facebook) or "George has cooties, we don't like him," it's a murder trial.
I get so mad at that jury whenever I think too hard about this.
They failed at their duty and blatantly disregarded the rules of the court. They should have been fined or punished for it, not given free trips to Disneyland and softball interviews on the various news circuits.
I get that some people out there think that stricter punishments like this would deter people from being jurors, but if it deters the sort of person from becoming a juror who just does what they want, doesn't pay attention and doesn't take the rules of the court seriously, I really don't see the negative in it.
This wasn't even a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification involves a jury clearly understanding the law and then proudly making a stand against it. Jury nullification, in one of the US's earliest trials in which Alexander Hamilton was a defense attorney, helped cement our rights to freedom of speech.
So yeah, this was not even close to jury nullification. This was a travesty. It was just pointless and stupid.
It was a group of idiots misinterpreting the law and making no sense whatsoever, then believing they did "the right thing because they swore to follow the law" despite the tears they claimed were rolling down their cheeks and that sick and disgusted feeling they got in the pit of their stomachs.
