Do you trust this jury?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

CarrieBean said:
Can someone please show a reliable source of the jury's info. The one site I read did not say #4 cannot judge people.
Click to expand...
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20502089,00.html

The never-married African-American woman is in her late 40s and lives alone. Deeply religious, she did not want to be selected, saying, "I don't like to judge people." Anthony's defense fought to keep her on the jury, where she shook her head as she heard about Anthony's repeated lies.

Though actually, I think she qualified it slightly by saying that she didn't like to judge people based on what others said. A lot of the trial is expert testimony explaining evidence, though. And she sounded very reluctant, so that has a lot of people worried.

What happened was, she got up and one of the first questions asked had her saying that she didn't like to judge people, and expressed extreme reluctance about it. The State, at that point, decided this was no good for the jury from their perspective, and asked next to no questions. Defense asked almost nothing to.

State went to try to strike her for cause (not being able to judge), and it was denied. So they then went to use one of the ten strikes each side got, the ones that don't require a reason.

However, the catch on those is that you can't exclude based on age, race, and some other things like that. The woman is black, so CM immediately objected and said it was racial bias. HHJP agreed, and State was not allowed to use their strike. They did try to use it a second time, but was denied for the same reason (racial bias). So she's on the jury, and as one of the first twelve, she is not an alternate.

I don't know anyone who thought it was racial bias, personally. I mean, she said she can't judge, I don't think the State would care if she was black, white, or purple, if she can't judge that would lead one to think that she'd be reluctant to judge one guilty -- especially combined with deep religious feelings, and the whole 'only God can truly judge a person' attitude some might claim. Though, I do agree that since race was made such an issue of by the Defense, it could be potentially perceived as racial bias in the sense that if there was an appeal, that could cause a problem. I think the judge was being overly cautious in his ruling, personally.

Editing to add that if you look at juror profiles, they list occupations or previous occupations for retired persons. Except for Juror 4. That's only ever listed as 'unknown' or left blank. No one even questioned her enough to know that about her!
 
Juries and the State are difficult to trust totally. Plus these folk are from out of town and you know how people like that are. :)
 
J.J. said:
I didn't follow the Scott Peterson trial.

My question to those of you that did are:
* what are the similiarities compared to ICA trial
* what about the jury , any juror that you were concerned with
* how much circumstantial evidence was there compared to ICA
* how long did it take the jury to reach a verdict

TIA
Click to expand...
These cases are very similar to me. Both are circumstantial cases with not much forensically to tie either killer to the crime. They didn't have a cause of death in either case. The most compelling evidence in both cases to me is their lies and their lack of appropriate emotion for their missing loved ones. Both had similar motives.

I think the evidence in the Anthony case is a bit more compelling because of the trunk which makes a stronger connection to the crime. I also think the 31 days is compelling because she never called 911 and just went on without a care in the world. Then she completely lied to police. Scott Peterson at least had the sense to report Laci missing right away.

There was one juror on the SP case the media were convinced was pro-defense because she smiled at Scott's attorney and seemed to respond well to him. It turns out she was never leaning towards the defense. She just thought his attorney was likable.
 
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HALLELUJAH. I hope they got it right with first degree
 
hln is confirming the verdict is in - 2:15

45 MINUTES - YOU GOT 45 MINUTES
 
Verdict reached is what they are saying on HLN.

Verdict will be read at 2:15 p.m. today.
 
KenoshaKid said:
Having #4 included because of race has always bothered me, after she said she can't judge someone. She should have been tossed because of that.
Click to expand...

She said she could not judge someone without knowing them or anything about them; I trust that she has come to know Casey and all about her pathological lying, laziness and selfishness. Nuff said, IMHOO.
 
45 minutes to hearing the Verdict!

2:15 p.m.
 
Elder Price said:
Do you think this jury will come together and do the right thing?
Click to expand...


The "right thing" has nothing to do with the actual verdict on any of the counts.

This is the "right thing":

"You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions..

This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions....

This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone...

Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law."


Most juries take their responsibility both seriously and professionally, following the instruction given to them.

If you don't approve of the verdict returned, that does not mean the jury didn't perform its job.
 
rossva said:
And there are people out there who believe Casey Anthony is innocent until proven guilty.

And there are people out there who believe Casey Anthony was not proven guilty by the State.

And there are people out there who are intelligent and have lot's of common sense who believe the above.

The only thing the STATE proved was Casey wwas guilty of lying to law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Neither the state nor the defense have the obligation to "prove" anything more than the facts they offer to the jury. Nor is proof of guilt the standard for the jury to measure the evidence against.

The challenge the prosecution faces is to surpass reasonable doubt; to present enough evidence that guilt (free of unreasonable doubt) is a reasonable conclusion. The prosecution cannot, through direct evidence, prove that the sun will rise in the east next week, and a defense attorney might question this assertion offering all kinds of scenarios in which this might not be so. They might suggest that the earth might well stop it's rotation or suffer crust displacement or even a magnetic shift. None the less, and despite this lack of prosecutorial PROOF, a reasonable jury would conclude that the sun will, in fact, continue to behave as it has.

And THAT is what the prosecution is arguing here. They (hopefully) presented all the evidence that a reasonable person needs to decide that Casey Anthony planned how to kill her child, was the only person who could have killed her child, that she did kill her child, that she let the tyke rot in the trunk before chucking her into a swamp, and that she spent the next thirty one days partying and lying to everyone.
 
rabidstoat said:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20502089,00.html

The never-married African-American woman is in her late 40s and lives alone. Deeply religious, she did not want to be selected, saying, "I don't like to judge people." Anthony's defense fought to keep her on the jury, where she shook her head as she heard about Anthony's repeated lies.

Though actually, I think she qualified it slightly by saying that she didn't like to judge people based on what others said. A lot of the trial is expert testimony explaining evidence, though. And she sounded very reluctant, so that has a lot of people worried.

What happened was, she got up and one of the first questions asked had her saying that she didn't like to judge people, and expressed extreme reluctance about it. The State, at that point, decided this was no good for the jury from their perspective, and asked next to no questions. Defense asked almost nothing to.

State went to try to strike her for cause (not being able to judge), and it was denied. So they then went to use one of the ten strikes each side got, the ones that don't require a reason.

However, the catch on those is that you can't exclude based on age, race, and some other things like that. The woman is black, so CM immediately objected and said it was racial bias. HHJP agreed, and State was not allowed to use their strike. They did try to use it a second time, but was denied for the same reason (racial bias). So she's on the jury, and as one of the first twelve, she is not an alternate.

I don't know anyone who thought it was racial bias, personally. I mean, she said she can't judge, I don't think the State would care if she was black, white, or purple, if she can't judge that would lead one to think that she'd be reluctant to judge one guilty -- especially combined with deep religious feelings, and the whole 'only God can truly judge a person' attitude some might claim. Though, I do agree that since race was made such an issue of by the Defense, it could be potentially perceived as racial bias in the sense that if there was an appeal, that could cause a problem. I think the judge was being overly cautious in his ruling, personally.

Editing to add that if you look at juror profiles, they list occupations or previous occupations for retired persons. Except for Juror 4. That's only ever listed as 'unknown' or left blank. No one even questioned her enough to know that about her!
Click to expand...

BBM

Thank you. This is what I read as well. Judging on what others say/said and judging on a chit load of circumstantial evidence are two different things.
 
Juror #4 makes me nervous, too, for all the reasons listed above. However, I think Judge Perry somehow understood through his experience that her words weren't indicative of someone likely to hang a jury, as much as they sounded that way to most of us. It wouldn't make sense for him to proceed while thinking that.
 
Chris_Texas said:
No, but I have every confidence in the prosecution team.

I am not saying 'Dont be nervous!' Be as nervous as you like, but I believe in our system. It is supposed to be tough to get a conviction, and it is. I am untroubled by people who say that they are uncomfortable with the idea of sending someone away forever, they SHOULD be. I suspect that anyone who denies feeling this way when put on the spot is either putting on a brave front or no one you would actually want on a jury.

I have been in this position myself where I faced making life or death decisions involving other people (not on a jury however). It is all well and good to say 'I would do this or that' from the comfort of the coffee shop, it is easy to mean it with absolute certainty, but when it comes down to it it's tough. Some folks are not afraid to admit this openly, but I believe we can still trust them to do their best.
Click to expand...

She did not say she was uncomfortable with judging someone,she stated that she was very religious and her religion FORBIDS her from judging others.
The one thing she did say she was 'uncomfortable' about was putting someone away..!
 
My opinion is that they decided too fast for not guilty. One dead child, throw away like trash, with duct tape on her face and no explanation from the mother as to what happened. My guess is they went with an accidental drowning and let's go home. jmo
 
What a total miscarriage of justice. What on earth is wrong with these people? This is just horrible and all I can think is that poor child, no justice for Caylee.
 
Linda7NJ said:
I never TRUST a jury, all I can do is HOPE they come to a just verdict.

I wish them all the best, testimony and evidence they've seen in this case is IMO life altering.
Click to expand...


Now ya know why, I NEVER trust a jury!

IMO It was the cloroform searches (84 times)
 
I DID trust this jury. Boy was I WRONG. I am heartsick and I just hope that after they get home and read up, they will realize just how wrong they were. OMG, were they wrong in their decision. MOO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 2,032 (members: 172, guests: 1,860)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
1,860
Total visitors
2,032
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,136
Messages
18,119,090
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top