I think it’s important that we have faith and trust in the jury. Clearly JS does not as he’s constantly whining about the jury “not understanding”. Not every one learns and processes information the same way. Some people are auditory learners—they need to hear the information presented in order to process it fully. Some people are visual learners, they need to see the information presented—they are the ones who will most likely respond to charts and graphs and video. Some people are both. Charts and graphs and videos won’t mean nearly as much to an auditory learner as witness testimony will. We, as bystanders (and we are just bystanders even though some have a propensity to inject themselves into cases), see things from our individual perspectives. A visual learner may feel the State’s case is lacking so far because the visual learner hasn’t seen what they deem an appropriate amount of visual presentations. Whereas an auditory learner may feel they have heard all they need to hear because of the spoken testimony presented. A good legal team will present material in a mixed media format to best reach the deepest understanding among all types of learning styles. It’s also important to remember that we aren’t in this courtroom. We only see what the camera wants to show us. We don’t feel the “vibe”. We don’t hear the responses from the gallery such as someone quickly drawing their breath at a piece of evidence. We don’t see or hear people shifting in their seats because they are uncomfortable with what’s being presented. We don’t get to see all of the subtle clues a defendant gives by way of body language, breathing, facial expressions, hair hiding, hands over mouth, etc. The jury hears and sees all of this. They even participate in these subtle, subconscious behaviors themselves. The overall feeling in a courtroom is VERY different from watching from somewhere outside the courtroom. As bystanders in this case, we don’t have all of this information, we may have some, but not all, and this information matters because it likely affects the jury in subliminal ways.
It has been stated that there’s confusion because of so many different things happening in this case amongst the players, the cars, the homes, etc. It’s been stated that we have had/made charts and graphs and maps, etc. We’ve also had the ability to research, dig for and gather information among us. We’ve shared the information and discussed it at great length. This is what we do on WS and it’s why we’re here. I think it’s a great thing! But remember, the jury does not have all of the information we have. They aren’t following the media. They aren’t to discuss the case during the trial. The jury’s experience is not even remotely close to what our experience is. The jury’s responsibility is to consider the information as presented during the trial to form a verdict.
The jurors are not to follow or view social media accounts of the defendant or her family. The court of public opinion will always be just that. It doesn’t matter in a court room; or it shouldn’t anyway. People (for the most part) can say what they want to say thanks to our First Amendment rights. Fortunately, we can also choose what information we want to receive or even acknowledge. If we find certain information inflammatory or upsetting, we can choose to ignore it.
Remember too, LE is not required to keep the public updated on their cases. They don’t have to tell the public anything at all about ongoing investigations or cases that are headed for trial. In fact, it’s usually better if they don’t tell the public much as all! In some high profile cases LE may choose to hold press conferences to inform the public, but they are not required to. LE isn’t required to create or follow any type of “inform the public” schedule or make and follow a schedule of updates through the media. LE can—and often does—choose to say nothing about a given case. It’s been stated here that LE (paraphrasing) didn’t meet their duty to keep the public informed on this case. I am reminded that LE has no obligation to inform the public. LE’s first and foremost priority in any case is maintaining the integrity of an investigation and case prior to and during trial, not keeping the public informed.
I know most (probably all) of us here at WS already know everything that I’ve just said. But sometimes I think it’s good to step back and review the basics.
I personally think this jury is going to get very tired of JS claiming (paraphrasing), “We must dumb this down so the ignorant jury can understand!”, if they haven’t already! Give them some credit, JS!
