Did the jury get it wrong, or...

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Did the jury get it wrong?

  • The jury got it wrong

    Votes: 1,051 81.9%

  • The state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

    Votes: 179 14.0%

  • The Defense provided reasonable doubt and the jury got it right

    Votes: 55 4.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 31 2.4%
  • Total voters
    1,283
  • Poll closed .

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solange82200 said:
I think I understand what you are saying, but let me know if Im wrong. My feeling is this, if they didnt buy the accident theory 100 percent, then the only other logical explanation is murder. So say they part believe it was an accident, part believe it was murder. There is no other logical explanation (personally i dont think accident is logical, but for the sake of argument) So even if they didnt buy the accident theory, and the only other logical explanation is murder, why not find her guilty of the lesser? That is not logical to say Im not convicting of murder because i think it may have been an accident, but part of me thinks it wasnt an accident it was murder, so I just wont convict of anything. There is no other alternative but those two that Ive heard (or that the defense has presented, I dont think we should speculate occurrences that not even the defense is claiming). So you find her guilty of what you know for sure she did at the least, which is child abuse or neglect.

To use the fact that you think it might have been an accident to not convict of murder, and then to use the fact that you think it might have been murder to find her not guilty of the lesser charge makes no sense, to me that is the epitome of a cop out. That is basically saying: Im too confused so I will just choose a ruling that will not cause any consequences (at least now, I think they have blood on their hands when Casey has her next child and kills it)
Click to expand...
I am not entirely sure what you just said Solange :hug:
But going off your last sentence, maybe it is a cop out, but they consider it reasonable doubt.
 
JBean said:
But I can understand that on a personal level in order to convict someone of first degree murder, the jurors needed to know a cause of death to support the evidence. Perhaps the SA was not legally required to prove it, but maybe that was the bar that the jurors needed to reach. IOW,they needed a COD to push them over the fence, but as it stood the SA,(in their opinion) did not prove it on its face.What it comes down to is without a COD, the jury did not think the state proved what they needed to.
I personally think this is reasonable. If there was other types of evidence that were stronger or indisputable, then the COD would not have been as critical to the jurors.
Agree or disagree,I don't think this was a violation of their duty at all.
Click to expand...

Oh - I agree with you - that's what this jury needed, and they didn't find either in the SA presentation of the case.

They were asked by the judge at jury selection if they could put aside certain elements to follow his instructions to them and they said they could...but then it seems they didn't - at least as far as considering the opening statements as evidence.

I thank you for your post - it enlightened me as to how they may have been thinking, and it makes perfect sense. It just seems to me they followed some of the instructions but not all.

To be clear, I do not think they thought they were violating their duty, and I am against saying they are stupid or lazy.

I'm not normally a stickler for following rules, :crazy:
but during a trial, I think what the judge says should be considered "the law."
I'm not saying the jury did anything devious or against common human nature. I just wish they had been more thorough and checked that big fat pack of paper HHBP gave them before they gave the verdict - perhaps it would have been different.
:sigh:


ETA: I have learned that , if I'm ever called for jury duty, I will be a pain in the a$$ to all the other jurors by insisting on reading the jury instructions first.

.
 
..since this thread deals with the jury------i thought this , on the jury in the recent (murder of 8 yr. old robert manville case)-----would be appropriate.

http://www.ktvb.com/home/Jury-foreman-explains-quick-verdict-in-Ehrlick-trial-125047454.html
---------snipped------


Inside the jury room
Tway gives a lot of credit to the way all of the jurors, including the alternates who weren't a part of the deliberation, took notes and really paid attention during the trial.

"I was really impressed with all 15 jurors," Tway said. "This was a group of people that worked very, very hard. There wasn't one person you felt wasn't taking notes, wasn't keeping up, wasn't really involved in the trial. It was really an honor to serve with all those folks."

Tway says each juror filled up several yellow legal pads of notes and would privately review their notes daily. So, he explained once the jury began deliberating, everyone had a good handle on the case.

"We did listen to a portion of one tape. We did read portions of some of the transcripts from some of the tapes. We looked at some of the pictures. We looked at some of the evidence that was there. But we didn't need to re-try the whole thing because we did have all the notes, and we did know what the evidence was," Tway said.
 
jjenny said:
The cause of death couldn't be gotten because the body became skeletal remains. What a good lesson to learn for anybody out there who is thinking of doing something wrong.
Click to expand...
Or a lesson to LE to thoroughly investigate when someone reports 3 times that they found something in the woods near the home of a missing child.
 
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned and I'm certainly not reading back 58 pages but a juror from the Scott Peterson trial said he believes the jury rushed because they were sequestered. Very interesting.
 
Tiki said:
Oh - I agree with you - that's what this jury needed, and they didn't find either in the SA presentation of the case.

They were asked by the judge at jury selection if they could put aside certain elements to follow his instructions to them and they said they could...but then it seems they didn't - at least as far as considering the opening statements as evidence.

I thank you for your post - it enlightened me as to how they may have been thinking, and it makes perfect sense. It just seems to me they followed some of the instructions but not all.

To be clear, I do not think they thought they were violating their duty, and I am against saying they are stupid or lazy.

I'm not normally a stickler for following rules, :crazy:
but during a trial, I think what the judge says should be considered "the law."
I'm not saying the jury did anything devious or against common human nature. I just wish they had been more thorough and checked that big fat pack of paper HHBP gave them before they gave the verdict - perhaps it would have been different.
:sigh:


ETA: I have learned that , if I'm ever called for jury duty, I will be a pain in the a$$ to all the other jurors by insisting on reading the jury instructions first.

.
Click to expand...
as luck would have it I got my jury summons in the mail last week.
 
jjenny said:
I am not sure what proof is needed. The child's body found in the swamp. Clearly the child is dead either by accident or murder. If jury doesn't believe the first degree murder is proven, what does that leave?
I mean, what other options are there?
Click to expand...
If they don't think there is child abuse and they don't think there was an accident-it leaves nothing;which is exactly what we got. Those are the elements and without them its a goose egg.
 
JBean said:
If they don't think there is child abuse and they don't think there was an accident-it leaves nothing;which is exactly what we got.
Click to expand...

They don't think there was child abuse, they don't think there was an accident, and they don't think there was a murder? I wonder if they think the child even existed at all? Maybe there never even was a child?
 
JBean said:
as luck would have it I got my jury summons in the mail last week.
Click to expand...

Oh, my. You're either rip-roarin' to go, or already tired of trials.
Good luck - you will be a thoughtful juror in any case.

.
 
Tiki said:
Oh - I agree with you - that's what this jury needed, and they didn't find either in the SA presentation of the case - but IMO the jury instructions are there to be followed.

They were asked by the judge at jury selection if they could put aside certain elements to follow his instructions to them and they said they could...but then they didn't - at least as far as considering the opening statements as evidence.

I'm not normally a stickler for following rules, :crazy:
but during a trial, I think what the judge says should be considered the law.
I'm not saying the jury did anything devious or against common human nature.

I thank you for your post - it enlightened me as to how they may have been thinking, and it makes perfect sense. It just seems to me they followed some of the instructions but not all.

To be clear, I do not think they thought they were violating their duty.
I just wish they had been more thorough and checked that big fat pack of paper HHBP gave them before they gave the verdict. :(


.
Click to expand...
In this regard, I think they did follow the rules.
I don't think they did not convict BECAUSE there was no COD. I think they did not convict because they did not think the state was able to prove their case. But in that same breath, they think if they had known the COD, then the state's case would have fallen into place and they would have had more to hang their hats on.
IMO they only wanted the COD to make sense of the state's case; not because the state HAD to tell them. They just needed more.
 
Tiki said:
Oh, my. You're either rip-roarin' to go, or already tired of trials.
Good luck - you will be a thoughtful juror in any case.

.
Click to expand...
Oh I get the big REJECT every single time. No one wants my thoughtfulness LOL.
 
JBean said:
I am not justifying their verdict. I am only saying that if they could not see child abuse they would not be able to find on anything at all.
The child abuse was the crime, the underlying felony and the premeditation in this case. If they didn't see that, it would be impossible for them to have come back with a guilty verdict on any of the charges,unless they bought the entire accident theory.I think they considered the accidnet theory, as many of us have here. But utlimately they discarded it or they would have found her guilty of plain garden variety manslaughter-kwim?
Click to expand...

How can you discard that it was an accident, AND that it was murder? You cant do that, there is not other logical explanation (again, I dont think drowning accidentally is logical, but for the sake of argument). I am pretty sure they were told they could not fantasize scenarios that not even the defense has said happened.

I dont see how anyone could believe that George was involved in all of it, framed his daughter, and that Kronk took the skeleton home. If they didnt believe those parts of it, I think it's unreasonable to assume it was just an accident. If it was just an accident, why would the defense not just say so and explain what happened? Instead, the defense lied about George, Kronk, etc. So if they can see Jose lied about that, how can they sit there and assume the other things he said are true? That seems like wild speculating and forming explanations that the defendant never said happened. If you believe it is an accident, and that is the only other alternative to murder (lets face it, no one, even the jurors, thinks it was anything but one of those two), you should ask yourself why would Jose not just say what really happened in the accident? Why lie about some part? Do you think it's reasonable for an innocent person to lie about what happened in general? An innocent person tells the truth (through their lawyer) and hopes it convinces you that the facts support it. Innocent people dont make up other scenarios of innocence, they dont have to... they're innocent! Its kind of hard to explain what I mean, hopefully you guys get the gist of it/.
 
Solange82200 said:
How can you discard that it was an accident, AND that it was murder? You cant do that, there is not other logical explanation (again, I dont think drowning accidentally is logical, but for the sake of argument). I am pretty sure they were told they could not fantasize scenarios that not even the defense has said happened.

I dont see how anyone could believe that George was involved in all of it, framed his daughter, and that Kronk took the skeleton home. If they didnt believe those parts of it, I think it's unreasonable to assume it was just an accident. If it was just an accident, why would the defense not just say so and explain what happened? Instead, the defense lied about George, Kronk, etc. So if they can see Jose lied about that, how can they sit there and assume the other things he said are true? That seems like wild speculating and forming explanations that the defendant never said happened. If you believe it is an accident, and that is the only other alternative to murder (lets face it, no one, even the jurors, thinks it was anything but one of those two), you should ask yourself why would Jose not just say what really happened in the accident? Why lie about some part? Do you think it's reasonable for an innocent person to lie about what happened in general? An innocent person tells the truth (through their lawyer) and hopes it convinces you that the facts support it. Innocent people dont make up other scenarios of innocence, they dont have to... they're innocent! Its kind of hard to explain what I mean, hopefully you guys get the gist of it/.
Click to expand...

They didn't include or exclude either and that is the problem. they don't know what happened and so all reasonable doubt was not extinguished.
They had no idea who was telling the truth and who was not and consequently were confused about the whole thing.

Without the aggravated child abuse the jurors could not pass go or collect 200. They were stopped in their tracks-unless they bought the accident. But again the accident was not what the state was saying happened so they were lost.

The question in my mind is not any of the murder/manslaughter issues, but rather what kept them from seeing child abuse. Was it not proven? was there evidence? That single charge would make or break the case. JMHO of course.
Again, not supporting it just talking about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 63 more.
Total: 1,879 (members: 64, guests: 1,815)

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
1,815
Total visitors
1,879
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,578
Messages
18,097,006
Members
230,885
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top