Could you serve as an unbiased juror in this case?

[Calliope]

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.

bbm

Not quite sure if this is what you meant by that statement, but keep in mind that the defendant doesn't have to prove a thing. The State has to prove they did it.

 

[angelmom]

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".

So sorry! I was on a jury once when I was pg and had already had 2 miscarriages. The judge was worried about me, and I was worried about me, but they picked me anyways. I guess I got even when I had to run out of the courtroom to throw up at one point! :blushing: But the judge had told me to just go if I needed. It was mortifying, and a huge waste of 3 days (a woman suing her divorce lawyer b/c she didn't get enough in the divorce...didn't get anything from us either!:snooty

I voted yes, I could be impartial. I know I could after sitting on a different jury where I really didn't like the defendant but there was just not enough evidence. (turned out later he was being extradited to AL for murder charges, and the pros was glad we acquitted :banghead: ).

I have very mixed feelings about the DP, but I think I could do it if the evidence were there.

 

[Barry]

I could be unbiased. I'm on the fence as it is.

 

[Beyond Belief]

Absolutely! I need facts.

 

[nosysw]

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".

I am so sorry this happened to you. I had no idea that something like this might happen. Why would anyone want a juror who didn't think they could be impartial? I know some people fake it to get out but you clearly had rationale and were upset...Some people are really just cold hearted.

 

[Dee10]

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.

Thank you for your post. I feel the same way, but didn't know quite how to express it.:blowkiss:

 

[PDXMom]

I am so sorry this happened to you. I had no idea that something like this might happen. Why would anyone want a juror who didn't think they could be impartial? I know some people fake it to get out but you clearly had rationale and were upset...Some people are really just cold hearted.

Thanks. I have no idea if this is normal or if I just had a weird situation. I thought they could have been a lot more sensitive - for instance, while the lawyers were questioning me in front of the whole group, they asked me "did your child die due to an accident? How old was your child?" etc. I felt violated. And then to be asked all that again in the judge's chambers. I really felt they didn't believe me, and I wished I'd had his death certificate so I could prove it to them. They said some cursory things like "sorry for your loss" or something, but it was about the most insincere thing I'd ever heard. Not to mention I had no intention or expectation of having to air my private hell in front of jurors and lawyers and a judge.

Ok....enough about that. Suffice to say, I'm going to change my vote to "no"

 

[Haeve]

I could be impartial, no problem. Despite all the circumstantial evidence in this case, I've seen nothing that could convince to convict TH, so it would be up to the DA to convince me. Beyond a reasonable doubt, thank you very much. And like someone said above, I'm pretty sure I don't like TH, but that doesn't mean she's guilty.

I never thought about having to serve on a DP jury before, but I don't believe in it, so I couldn't do that. I don't know if you're allowed to refuse on those grounds.

 

[Jade2010]

Question:
If I believe Terri is NOT guilty and they have to prove to me that she IS does that make me a viable jurist(sp)? Or would it need to be I don't know if Terri is guilty or not? Not regarding just this poll but in the real world.

 

[Etilema]

I do believe that TH is involved, but that wouldn't stop me from considering all of the evidence presented with an open mind. As others have said, we have so little hard information that it is not currently possible to be 100% sure of who is responsible. Although from Day One, I highly suspected TH, and all that has come out since then has gone to strengthen that suspicion, I definitely think I would be able to consider the case without prejudice.

JMO

 

[Jade2010]

Also if any of us were called to be a juror and we said we had been following it on WS, would that disqualify us even for those on the fence, unsure, etc.? Thanks.

 

[nosysw]

Question:
If I believe Terri is NOT guilty and they have to prove to me that she IS does that make me a viable jurist(sp)? Or would it need to be I don't know if Terri is guilty or not? Not regarding just this poll but in the real world.

I think (from my limited jury experience) you have to go into it unbiased...and are asked if anything you've seen or heard about the case would bias you in any way...If you answer that you are biased, but feel you could be fair, it is up to the lawyers to dismiss you or not depending on how they feel you would be for their side...

 

[cj1132]

I have served on many juries over the years and for some reason, if my number was called, I was on the jury after various people were struck. I realize that a jury of your peers is what our country does and while it sounds good, speaking from personal experience, people have many preconcieved notions which influence the way they vote. Jurors don't always listen to the judge's instructions.

As to this case, I feel that I've followed it too closely to be on the jury. I've seen too many news articles and have read a lot on here. I would rather have someone who hasn't followed this case as closely as I have to be in my place. I think I could be objective but would have myself removed as a possible juror.

 

[Jade2010]

I think (from my limited jury experience) you have to go into it unbiased...and are asked if anything you've seen or heard about the case would bias you in any way...If you answer that you are biased, but feel you could be fair, it is up to the lawyers to dismiss you or not depending on how they feel you would be for their side...

So even if I think I could check 'impartial' on the poll because I believe Terri to be innocent, I would actually be biased because I believe she is innocent? I'm confusing myself. LOL:waitasec:


ETA:Ahh... I knew I saw unbiased somewhere... so the poll has impartial and the title says unbiased... so please forgive me for being so confusing.

 

[nosysw]

So even if I think I could check 'impartial' on the poll because I believe Terri to be innocent, I would actually be biased because I believe she is innocent? I'm confusing myself. LOL:waitasec:


ETA:Ahh... I knew I saw unbiased somewhere... so the poll has impartial and the title says unbiased... so please forgive me for being so confusing.

The prosecution might find you to be biased as they are looking for a conviction...Yes, I see what you are saying- semantically, I guess you could be biased but then act in an impartial manner- theoretically, anyway, but the lawyers might not agree with you...

 

[wondering1]

So even if I think I could check 'impartial' on the poll because I believe Terri to be innocent, I would actually be biased because I believe she is innocent? I'm confusing myself. LOL:waitasec:


ETA:Ahh... I knew I saw unbiased somewhere... so the poll has impartial and the title says unbiased... so please forgive me for being so confusing.

Of course...a belief regarding the accused's culpability prior to trial and hearing the evidence will get you excluded immediately by the prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, will send you flowers and balloons

 

[bessie]

Question:
If I believe Terri is NOT guilty and they have to prove to me that she IS does that make me a viable jurist(sp)? Or would it need to be I don't know if Terri is guilty or not? Not regarding just this poll but in the real world.

Our legal system requires that all trials proceed on that very premise, whereby the accused is presumed innocent. The onus is on the prosecution to prove otherwise.

 

[gitana1]

I have already formed an opinion. I would be willing to listen to the evidence but TH's conduct in regards to the RO and disso have left me 95% certain that she is involved in Kyron's disappearance. That would be more than enough to exclude me. Of course, I guess it depends on the charge and the evidence.

 

[gitana1]

Question:
If I believe Terri is NOT guilty and they have to prove to me that she IS does that make me a viable jurist(sp)? Or would it need to be I don't know if Terri is guilty or not? Not regarding just this poll but in the real world.

I think you would be viable. The state may try to exclude you but you are in the position the law calls you to be in as a juror.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I would have no problem being unbiased.

I understand very well that it is the state's 'burden' to prove their case and present evidence, and if they fail to show me evidence where I can ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then that person is 'not guilty.'

Note that 'not guilty' is NOT the same as 'innocent.' A person can be legally determined to be 'not guilty,' which means the jury said the state didn't prove it's case, and at the same time every person on that jury can *believe in their heart* the defendant is actually guilty.

Bottomline: the state has to prove their case. A good juror understands that and applies the law/rules as the judge instructs them.