Could you serve as an unbiased juror in this case?

[nonfictionrocks]

I did not vote right away but after reading this:

I could very likely be an unpartial juror, but I voted I am unsure. I am leaning pretty hard on the side of a stranger did it, but I also know that not nearly all the evidence is on the table.

Of course, all the evidence does not come on the table during a trial, either...

But I'm unsure if I could do it impartially. I have served before, and will again...and even hung a jury; that case was hard, and it was a tough tough time in the jury room. So I think I could do it...but I'm also unsure.

Just being totally honest here...

Best-
Herding Cats

in all honesty, I am going to have to vote unsure too.

 

[eyes4crime]

Very interesting question! I haven't seen any evidence that renders Teri guilty - not yet, so I'm sure I would be an impartial jurist. Although if it turned into a death penalty case, I would either be rejected or I would ask to be removed...I don't and never have believed in the DP. moo

 

[DairyGirl]

As a resident of Multnomah county I have thought about this and I am sure that I could be inpartial. Even if all the "unnamed sources" turned out to be true I could not convict with what I know now, even though I am leaning (51% vs 49% at times) towards her being guilty. I would have to hear some pretty convincing hard evidence before I would vote guilty. On second thought maybe I wouldn't make a good juror.

 

[Sherbie]

I don't know who will eventually end up being a defendant in this case, but if we're talking about judging Terri should she be charged, I still don't know what her involvement might be, so I could definitely be unbiased.

Even if I were pretty certain of a defendant's guilt going into a trial, they'd get a blank slate from me as a juror and the state would have to thoroughly prove the defendant's guilt. That's not because I don't care if someone who is guilty goes free; it's because I would not want anyone in any case who might be innocent to be convicted without sufficient evidence.

That has to be what we all keep in mind as jurors, IMO. Otherwise, the system can easily bulldoze the innocent (both when a prosecutor's motives are pure and especially when they aren't). Upholding the right of even the most heinous among us to a fair trial helps ensure the same for all the rest of us, too.

I feel very strongly about this because I believe it's all that stands between any of us and unjust prosecution/imprisonment (or even worse).

 

[nursebeeme]

he!! yes I could be unbiased when presented with all the facts!

 

[nosysw]

Very interesting question! I haven't seen any evidence that renders Teri guilty - not yet, so I'm sure I would be an impartial jurist. Although if it turned into a death penalty case, I would either be rejected or I would ask to be removed...I don't and never have believed in the DP. moo

oops- i forgot about the dp- i wouldn't be able to do that either if that was an option...my bias wouldn't be for or against the defendant, just against the dp so i would have to be removed if it came to that...

 

[STEADFAST]

I put "No" because I've heard too many facts and rumors and speculations that probably wouldn't be part of the evidence in court. I would also be very biased to believe evidence or testimony that incriminated her since I already think she did it.

 

[Emma Peel]

Yes, I feel that I could. But with my being related to LE working this case, I know I'd be disqualified!

You're related to who? :detective:

Oh my!

Give them our best!

 

[sorrell skye]

If I lived in Multnomah County, and was called as a juror, I'd be one of the first to be booted since I've followed this case from day one. I'm sure that will be one of the questions asked on the juror questionnaire.

But, just for the sake of answering the OP, IF the State seeks the DP when this goes to trial, I wouldn't want to serve as a juror. It would definitely affect my ability to be impartial (it would make it harder for me to convict). If I knew the DP was off the table, however, I believe I could be impartial.

I think it's easier said than done, though - remaining impartial, especially in a case regarding a crime against a child. I've managed to straddle this fence up to now, so I think I could be open-minded in a courtroom when the evidence was presented.

One thing I'm absolutely certain of: I don't envy any potential jurors when this does go to trial.

 

[cluciano63]

Wow, 54 votes already. And 34 day they could be impartial, which is a great thing, as we WS'ers probably follow this case more closely than the average Oregonian.

On the other hand, we are probably more inherently fair too, since we take the time to examine (to say the least) every bit of information. The average person probably does not and whether they admit it or not, may have heard just enough to "know" that the "Stepmom did it."

Still, I think it bodes well for the chances of a jury being seated somewhere in Oregon. Now if only there is some movement in the case...

 

[SurfieTX]

If I had to decide on the death penalty, then no..I couldn't be unbiased. I couldn't do that. Otherwise, yes.

 

[miabellamoure]

Not living in OR leaves no chance of this happening but, if I did...I know I could be a fair & impartial juror...despite what I feel right now.

Right now my opinions are based on info from media, Kyron's family & the little bits from LE. Once in court...and seeing the ALL the evidence & facts laid out before me would be much different. I'd also follow the letter of the law as a juror, too.

 

[shorty42404]

I believe Terri is behind Kyron's disappearance but I voted yes because I'm still open to other possibilities. As a juror I'd have to be impartial, imo, to make a fair judgement.

 

[Cajun Girl]

Yes. I could. All I would need is evidence to prove the truth one way or the other. In all honesty I pray to God TMH had nothing to do with this and would be elated to find out that was true. I would be saddened deeply but compelled by justice if the evidence proved otherwise.

Someone brought up the death penalty. Er, then no, I could never sit on that jury.

 

[PDXMom]

I have served on a jury several years ago, and it involved a child. The trial only lasted 3 days, but it was a learning experience for me, and I'm glad I had the privilege of serving at least once. Not sure I ever want to do it again.
My hubby served on a jury about a year ago, but the whole thing was over in one day. He did not exactly enjoy it.

Well, I have to say that I admire all of you who have served on juries and that you're much stronger than me. I was called to be in a jury pool a few years ago, the very day I was promoted for a job I'd been trying to get for over a year. I got in there thinking I'd never get picked, but I did. Then I found that the case involved a child who'd been hit by a car. I freaked out. They were really insistent and asked the entire crowd if there was anyone who didn't feel they could serve. I was the only one to raise my hand. They asked me why and I told them. It was because I had a child who had died and I didn't think I could be impartial. The lawyers pushed harder and I started to cry. Mind you, this was in front of 40+ strangers. They still didn't want to let me off the hook. I ended up being called into the judge's chambers and interrogated (IMO) by both lawyers and the judge until I was just a wreck and told them I would vote to convict anyone who would hurt a child, no matter what. Then I got sent back to the big room where everyone was waiting and staring at me. Finally, I was eliminated. The whole thing left a really bad taste in my mouth, and I felt even more that I'd never be able to handle the way lawyers manipulate people and twist facts. In light of that experience, I voted "unsure", but probably should have voted "no".

 

[pufnstuf]

I'm open-minded and analytical. I could set aside my personal views and be objective in hearing the case.

From what little the media and LE are giving us, I think that she is responsible for Kyron's disappearance, but I'm not a juror on WS and this isn't a court of law. I would be very open to hearing the case against her, hearing her defense, and then voting in consideration of juror instructions.

 

[Susan10]

I would like to think that I would be impartial, but I doubt it at this point. I would concentrate on the circumstantial currently available that would tend to point to her guilt because at this time I believe that TH is guilty of Kyron's disappearance.

The MFH attempt in my book is damning, although even for that, she has not been arrested. Problem there.

I have to see something substantial that exonerates TH, and then I would be willing to admit that my current opinion is wrong.

What a GREAT country we have with our laws and protection of the innocent-until-proven-guilty. I have respect for those on this board who disagree with my current opinion. They are the ones I would want on my jury, especially if I was innocent of a crime but looked guilty in the press or otherwise.

This is a country of laws for protection of the citizens. IMHO, that is why people want to live here and immigrate illegally or legally. We are a nation of laws designed to protect our citizens.

Sure, we have problems, many, but we have avenues to address and correct them without being destroyed for speaking out.

May dear Kyron be found and may anyone guilty of harming him face justice.

 

[human]

I could sit on a jury for a speeding ticket, if there is such a thing , drunk driving, theft.

But for something such as this, I couldn't especially listening to the evidence. Reading that article about Terri made me sick to my stomach.

I quit reading true crime books because it was too upsetting.

I know I'm on here, but if it got to gory details, I would be done reading.

 

[loves2bmom]

Well, I have to say that I admire all of you who have served on juries and that you're much stronger than me. I was called to be in a jury pool a few years ago, the very day I was promoted for a job I'd been trying to get for over a year. I got in there thinking I'd never get picked, but I did. Then I found that the case involved a child who'd been hit by a car. I freaked out. They were really insistent and asked the entire crowd if there was anyone who didn't feel they could serve. I was the only one to raise my hand. They asked me why and I told them. It was because I had a child who had died and I didn't think I could be impartial. The lawyers pushed harder and I started to cry. Mind you, this was in front of 40+ strangers. They still didn't want to let me off the hook. I ended up being called into the judge's chambers and interrogated (IMO) by both lawyers and the judge until I was just a wreck and told them I would vote to convict anyone who would hurt a child, no matter what. Then I got sent back to the big room where everyone was waiting and staring at me. Finally, I was eliminated. The whole thing left a really bad taste in my mouth, and I felt even more that I'd never be able to handle the way lawyers manipulate people and twist facts. In light of that experience, I voted "unsure", but probably should have voted "no".

{{{PDXMOM}}}} I'm so sorry!:grouphug:

 

[Calliope]

I put "No" because I've heard too many facts and rumors and speculations that probably wouldn't be part of the evidence in court. I would also be very biased to believe evidence or testimony that incriminated her since I already think she did it.

The "thanks" button wasn't enough.