But people do have a short attention span, even on juries, and even with the best of intentions going in...it will be tough-going to keep the interest of all 12 when the dry stuff really comes in, day after day...it is just a fact. I've seen juries with at least one person asleep, we probably all have, and all victims of crimes are equally worthwhile as far as justice goes.
I agree. IIRC that was put out there as an explanation for the NG verdict for OJ. So it seems to me that Scott Peterson's conviction following a very tedious case presented by the state isn't useful when trying judge whether or not the prosecution in this case will succeed.
I'm not an expert at all, but it seems like nothing is really black and white when it comes to determining if either sides case will result in a conviction. I think its possible to note tendencies, but there are just so many variables involved. Its very complicated. Look how much money defense attorneys spend on jury consultants.
Of course it can be argued that Clark and Darden's prosecution failed because alot of the technology was new. The jurors didn't know how to judge something that they were not familiar with, let alone understand how it works or if it could be reliable.
In this case I am most concerned with the air samples because I think that it is a new technology. I think that the hair banding is new too, right? The jurors could distrust those pieces of evidence because they have never seen it in a TV cop drama. On the other hand they since they see all sorts of amazing was to process evidence on CSI they may be accepting of the new technology.
Of course the trial does not need to be entertaining, but it does need to engage the interest and sympathies of 12 very different people and maintain that throughout a period of weeks or months.
Again, I think of a comparison to OJ's prosecution. Another explanation for that NG verdict was that the prosecution image was not engaging. IIRC, Marcia Clark fiddled around with her appearance during the trial. (That really p1ssed me off and I wonder if those judgements have anything to do with all that plastic surgery she's had. I understand why personal presentation is important, but I think sexism played a part in how Marcia was judged.)
One time I heard VP Biden say that he could have been president if he had better hair. He was making a joke of course but there is some truth to it. Whether we like it or not how a candidate looks is important to getting elected. Think JFK and Jackie or Reagan, people love image. John Kerry has had plastic surgery, and I really don't think he is the type that would do it if he weren't a politician.
I think that this early on, everyone knows that the stage is being set and that it won't be all fireworks. Hopefully the state won't "lose" anyone before the parts that are of most interest and importance come into play.
That's one of the reasons I do have confidence in the jurors ability to understand all the technical and more tedious because of all those crime dramas. People see that technology is involved in these cases and expect it.
I don't know this case inside out the way many do and am trying really hard to watch it as if I know nothing; right now, I would have no idea what happened to Caylee, from this trial, and would need someone to show me. I hope the state can do it.
Me too, and its making me nervous.
I thought of something that could influence the jurors in favor of the state, but I don't know if its hogwash or not. I actually worry that this traumatic and tragic story will greatly affect their peace of mind. Especially since they can't speak to loved ones to process what they are seeing. I wonder if that will will make them all the more horrified with Casey's actions.
fftobed: This stuff gives me analysis paralysis.:thud:
