Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[SaltyTexan]

In the end I think it just came down to an academy award performance (by KC without saying a word) versus boring old forensic pathologists. Reality TV. Sad, sad, sad.

 

[Sharai]

When Judge Perry read the definition of reasonable doubt it was very clear it was different than what the defense presented to the jury. I guess he did not emphasize it enough.



I agree they were talking about it before deliberation there is no doubt in my mind.

The jury should have asked for clarification.

 

[MarthaM]

The judge read the jury instructions to them. They're not difficult to follow, and not excruciatingly long even though some have criticized this jury for not taking hours to reread them. They're maybe 10 pages of text spread out over 26 sheets of paper. If any juror had a question about any of them after the judge read them, it would only take a minute or two to refresh their memories by looking at the printed version.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony

It sounds to me like this jury not only understood the judge's instructions very well but followed them.

And as to the use of opening/closing arguments by the jury... the 'accidental' thing is even part of the jury instructions, so there's nothing wrong with them addressing that in their deliberations (page 3 of the instructions).

 

[Kelroy]

Well you're operating from the assumption that these jurors were being honest by saying they knew little about this case beforehand. This is a high profile case and most people realize sitting on the jury of a high profile case have the opportunity to cash in by selling their story. So there is a good chance potential jurors out there would want on a high profile case to cash in and would tell the attorneys what they think they want to hear so they can get on this jury.

Well, I certainly knew very little about it before the trial, though I don't live in Florida. The news sources I read and listen to don't often report on stuff like this. I remember Dr. G saying she didn't know much about the case because she listens to NPR; same here.

I think there's a ton of room to criticize whether the jurors read and understood the instructions--the instructions about disregarding the penalty during the guilt phase, about reasonable doubt, about culpable negligence. I simply think a conspiracy theory about the jury voting not guilty on a quest for money--well, it strikes me as a distraction from the very real issues with the verdict. JMO.

Anyway I think these jurors were discussing the case long before they got to deliberate on it and had their minds made up. I think it's clear that some of them tried to rationalize everything away in favor of a NG verdict. I mean they wouldn't even vote for aggravated manslaughter because they claimed they didn't know who Caylee's caretaker was even though Casey was her mother.

I don't know if they were deliberating beforehand, and I know there has been a push (including in FL) to remove that part of jury instructions; some judges say it would be helpful for jurors to be able to discuss the trial as it progresses. However, I totally agree that the acquittal for manslaughter makes no sense, at least not according to what the jurors have said so far.

 

[Boytwnmom]

the precise cause of death could not be determined because Caylee had become a skeleton after she was stuffed into garbage bags and thrown into a swamp. The state does not have to prove the cause of death. One expects jurors to have the minimal intelligence to understand that it is the manner of death that is the important element. Otherwise no one could be convicted in cases where the body has decomposed or is never found as often happens. There are lots of people convicted when there are not even bodies found never mind cause of death.

This death was not an accident because there was no evidence of an accident or that suggested an accident based upon the medical examiners very experienced opinion which is her job to render in all cases of unexplained death. It doesn't matter whether it was duct tape or chloroform or other means of suffocation that killed her prior to being stuffed into garbage bags and a laundry bag from her house. She was wearing a shirt that Casey kept elsewhere and not at the house. It was seen in photos from Ricardos. Casey is the only person that every piece of evidence links to.

Statements are not proof in a court of law...How exactly did the prosecution show how Caylee died?? was it the duct tape or the chloroform? Or did she drown? there is no solid proof either way. Its not a court of public opinion.

 

[Boytwnmom]

it makes absolutely no difference how she was killed. It was a homicide. The means is irrelevant legally. How do you think Scott Peterson got convicted? How do you think people get convicted when there isn't even a body? Because a homicide occurred. It's not a medical determination, it's a determination of the circumstances around a death or disappearance. It doesn't require cause, motive, location etc. If we adopt this new standard keep heairng about an awful lot of murderers are going to be unconvictable.


QUOTE=Peepers;6881980]You need to take the emotion out of it. the state had the burden of proving she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform, thats what they said, they needed to prove that part. They didnt prove that part. Most everyone agrees KC got away with murder, its two different things. The state did not charge her with covering up a drowning, they charged her with murder but the pieces were not there to say how or when she died.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sharai]

The judge read the jury instructions to them. They're not difficult to follow, and not excruciatingly long even though some have criticized this jury for not taking hours to reread them. They're maybe 10 pages of text spread out over 26 sheets of paper. If any juror had a question about any of them after the judge read them, it would only take a minute or two to refresh their memories by looking at the printed version.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony

It sounds to me like this jury not only understood the judge's instructions very well but followed them.

And as to the use of opening/closing arguments by the jury... the 'accidental' thing is even part of the jury instructions, so there's nothing wrong with them addressing that in their deliberations (page 3 of the instructions).

I respectfully disagree with your estimation of the jury's adherance to the judge's instructions as laid out in the posted document. I believe this jury did not seriously consider the circumstanial evidence nor make reasonable inferences. The fact that within the 10 1/2 hours of deliberation they did not ask for clarification of any evidence and/or instructions and have since expressed a lack of clarity causes me concern regarding the quality of deliberations and the subsequent verdict.

 

[Saffron]

Jean C. sure got it wrong...all we ever heard from her was how serious, how dedicated, how on the edge of the seat this jury was, taking it all in, not missing a word, etc...she did say they didn't take a lot of notes, but she made it sound like a good thing, somehow, as though they were so riveted they couldn't pause long enough to do so.

Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those jurors who thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Thank you boytwn! I've missed you! I'm so glad to see you again and read your op. Thanks. xoxo

 

[Sweet Fox]

If they couldnt find her guilty of first degree why didnt they ask questions about the other charges not one of them did NOT A ONE. IM not buying it i think this jury was tampered with ..... JMO

MOO) I strongly believe there was jury tampering.

Here's a article that provides insight on this jury.

http://www.examiner.com/criminal-pr...s-request-show-disregard-for-caylee-s-justice

Also some food for thought. I read this in another forum - this case was brought by the State and she can’t be tried again for Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. However, the local DA can now charge her for involuntary man-slaughter; she can't deny it - her defense in this trial is all the evidence they need to indict her.

Do you thinks it's possible for the local DA to charge her?

 

[kelian36]

Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those that thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.

Saffron,
Thanks for sharing what you heard. I had not heard that........what will we all do months or years from now, if that type of thinking by the jurors is confirmed?
I have no trust in the judicial system after this trial. :waitasec:

 

[Soulmagent]

Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those that thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.

The court room rules explain why everyone was keeping their expressions under control. It was expressed the whole trial..No gestures of any kind by anyone. I am sure they were instructed as to the rule and they may have even been given that reason as an explaination as to why they were not to make them.

 

[annalia]

The judge read the jury instructions to them. They're not difficult to follow, and not excruciatingly long even though some have criticized this jury for not taking hours to reread them. They're maybe 10 pages of text spread out over 26 sheets of paper. If any juror had a question about any of them after the judge read them, it would only take a minute or two to refresh their memories by looking at the printed version.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony

It sounds to me like this jury not only understood the judge's instructions very well but followed them.

And as to the use of opening/closing arguments by the jury... the 'accidental' thing is even part of the jury instructions, so there's nothing wrong with them addressing that in their deliberations (page 3 of the instructions).

My bolding

What evidence, other than in the defense OS, was presented regarding accidental drowning?

 

[Lovejac]

Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those jurors who thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.

She was keeping her face without expression ONLY when the jurors were around.

But yucking it up and such when they were not around to see it.

PS: I REALLY hope a couple of those jurors get a chance to see that FRIGHTENING clip when KC bared her teeth at Jose.

It still skeeves me out!

 

[Saffron]

The court room rules explain why everyone was keeping their expressions under control. It was expressed the whole trial..No gestures of any kind by anyone. I am sure they were instructed as to the rule and they may have even been given that reason as an explaination as to why they were not to make them.

I didn't realize the jury was included under those rules. I thought those rules were for the sake of the jury, but probably didn't apply to the jury. I'm not saying the jury would be allowed loud sighing and outbursts, but I wouldn't have thought they were obligated to have poker faces. Casey was certainly allowed to cry, laugh, shake her head, mouth words, etc., throughout the trial. But, like I said, perhaps I was reaching on that criticism. There's so much more to criticize with this jury than that anyway. Unfortunately.

 

[Soulmagent]

Off topic, sort of

Does anyone know if any of the jurors have registered here and been verified by Tricia?

I hope they all do so it becames a TOS to make ill willed comments towards them.:crazy:

 

[cluciano63]

Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those jurors who thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.

It is possible they did not like the SA's, I know I didn't. But I thought Casey's expressions in court were so inappropriate that she was doing herself more harm than good, if they were watching her. And yet, apparently they "bonded" with her in some way. These things should NOT matter, just saying that people are human and base their decisions on wrong data or using the wrong reasons all the time.

I guess the expression "you never know what a jury will do" has taken on an entirely new meaning. No prosecutors will ever feel quite so confident for a long time to come, IMO.

 

[MarthaM]

Do you thinks it's possible for the local DA to charge her?

Not possible.

As I understand it, the only way she could be tried again for this would be in federal court, and there really isn't anything to charge her with there. I heard a discussion about this the other day, and there wasn't a federal charge they could use--not that they would, anyway.

 

[Soulmagent]

I didn't realize the jury was included under those rules. I thought those rules were for the sake of the jury, but probably didn't apply to the jury. I'm not saying the jury would be allowed loud sighing and outbursts, but I wouldn't have thought they were obligated to have poker faces. Casey was certainly allowed to cry, laugh, shake her head, mouth words, etc., throughout the trial. But, like I said, perhaps I was reaching on that criticism. There's so much more to criticize with this jury than that anyway. Unfortunately.

I know the rule extended to GA and CA. I do believe it was also in effect for the jury.

With the lawyers and the defendants they would require some interaction between eachother so allowances would be made for that, as well as witness on the stand but other then that as we saw the whole court was under the rule.Media too.

 

[Sharai]

Alrighty then, I think I now understand.

Peace out :wink:

I respectfully disagree, it is the responsibility of the jury to examine the evidence and make an inference as to guilt or innocence of the defendent. Discovering the truth is an aspect of this process. The jury seemed to understand this or else they would not have found Casey Anthony guilty of lying. I find it incomprehensible as to how they were unable to ascertain that the reason she lied had to to with her culpability.

Furthermore, the manner in which the defense team approached this trial including their behavior within the courtroom and their continual courtship of the media while they criticized and blamed them for the "media circus" they created is deplorable. I believe Jose Baez disrespected the court, the members of the court, the American judicial system, and the American public by fabricating lies, making accusations, and prostituting the adversal nature of the criminal justice system to his own advantage. I seriously believe his behavior is evidence of a serious lapse in character and personality.

The American judicial system is the foundation upon which society is established. How is this verdict going to affect society standards of behavior from this day forth?