Names of Jurors just Released

[logicalgirl]

Have been researching jury-related stuff, including the impact of jury sequestering. From a Canadian site..

"The original purpose of sequestering juries was to compel jurors to reach a verdict quickly by denying them water and food." No need to use drastic measures to rush the P-12, eh?

Canadian trials are very different however - you hear about almost no evidence before the trial, almost none while the trial is underway and when it's complete and the sentence has been rendered, then the information comes out. Something like the Sunshine Laws are inconceivable in Canada - we have so much trust in our Court systems - quite naive really...

 

[Azcrabcakes]

The problem with what you propose is that the very people you want on that jury are those who are not interested in serving because they are truly the ones with the least bias. Those who are over eager to serve usually have formed opinions already and want a chance to "do the right thing" which could be something personal for them and not objective which is the purpose of the jury. The juror who is perfect is the one who does not want to serve but if picked will do a good job because they know it is their civil duty. Freedom does have a price but it is little to pay for what we have. Only in America would KC have been set free. Many people do not serve, ever, even though they are repeatedly called.


Maybe one way to get information about potential jurors is to send out a form 6 months prior to them being called to serve and ask them generic questions about all trials, including DP's. They're more likely to answer questions honestly if they don't know what trial's are coming up in the future.

I guess you have to do what you can afford to do at the time. A week or two off of work is doable for most. Hardship for another. Most cases that go to trial are interesting and they are a learning experience. Not all cases are like KC's and not all cases publish the names of the jurors. jmo

ITA! Applause. The form sent to potential jurors months in advance is the best idea I've seen in years! THAT is the solution. At least in my few minutes of pondering, I see no drawbacks! That IS a great way to go about it. Weed out those who likely won't be chosen anyway and save time and money!

Also, I never believed those potential jurors who said they did not watch the news/have a computer/ or did not read the papers. That is hooey. Sure, some people are not up to the minute on news and current events, but no way did that many people "know" so little about this case. It was everywhere, world-wide. (Plenty of coverage in the UK too, despite what that witness said on the stand). They all had reasons to give the answers they did - to be eliminated, or to be chosen!

LC, I also feel like you about the civic duty aspect of being a juror. I waited most of my adult life to be called, always a registered voter and driver's license holder. I was well into my 50's when I was finally called... a four month federal trial! It was VERY educational and worth every minute.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

WOW Day 3 and all jurors are perfectly fine! Whew...thank goodness that bloodthirsty public is still restraining itself.

 

[logicalgirl]

ITA! Applause. The form sent to potential jurors months in advance is the best idea I've seen in years! THAT is the solution. At least in my few minutes of pondering, I see no drawbacks! That IS a great way to go about it. Weed out those who likely won't be chosen anyway and save time and money!

Also, I never believed those potential jurors who said they did not watch the news/have a computer/ or did not read the papers. That is hooey. Sure, some people are not up to the minute on news and current events, but no way did that many people "know" so little about this case. It was everywhere, world-wide. (Plenty of coverage in the UK too, despite what that witness said on the stand). They all had reasons to give the answers they did - to be eliminated, or to be chosen!

LC, I also feel like you about the civic duty aspect of being a juror. I waited most of my adult life to be called, always a registered voter and driver's license holder. I was well into my 50's when I was finally called... a four month federal trial! It was VERY educational and worth every minute.

Me too, always vote, registered driver's license - only been called once and I had shingles...I was immediately excused....:waitasec:

 

[Hope4More]

I have been called to jury duty 3 times in the last year alone, twice after I actually sat on a jury, which made the next two summons literally illegal (can't serve more than once in a calendar year).

Where I live there is too much crime not enough registered voters, and fewer still peeps willing to serve or even answer the summons.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The problem with what you propose is that the very people you want on that jury are those who are not interested in serving because they are truly the ones with the least bias. Those who are over eager to serve usually have formed opinions already and want a chance to "do the right thing" which could be something personal for them and not objective which is the purpose of the jury. The juror who is perfect is the one who does not want to serve but if picked will do a good job because they know it is their civil duty. Freedom does have a price but it is little to pay for what we have. Only in America would KC have been set free. Many people do not serve, ever, even though they are repeatedly called.

On death penalty cases you are given a choice. If you tell the judge you do not agree with DP and would never vote for it you will be disqualified. Or that you were 100% sure of person's guilt. That is how many potential jurors get out of being picked. And they went through a lot of people during selection. Obviously those few jurors who came forward to speak after the trial were against the DP so they were not exactly truthful when they said they would have no problem.

Maybe one way to get information about potential jurors is to send out a form 6 months prior to them being called to serve and ask them generic questions about all trials, including DP's. They're more likely to answer questions honestly if they don't know what trial's are coming up in the future.

I guess you have to do what you can afford to do at the time. A week or two off of work is doable for most. Hardship for another. Most cases that go to trial are interesting and they are a learning experience. Not all cases are like KC's and not all cases publish the names of the jurors. jmo

Just a thought but I don't think it's a good idea to select uninformed, uninvolved people who don't know what's going on in their own community. Their careless selfish nature seems like it would spill over into the trial. Seems like we'd just end up with more slovenly, non-critical thinking goofs like on certain juries. A critical thinking/iq test would be good though. I usually agree with you - not trying to be a pest. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, unlike in Casey's trial.

 

[LambChop]

Just a thought but I don't think it's a good idea to select uninformed, uninvolved people who don't know what's going on in their own community. Their careless selfish nature seems like it would spill over into the trial. Seems like we'd just end up with more slovenly, non-critical thinking goofs like on certain juries. A critical thinking/iq test would be good though. I usually agree with you - not trying to be a pest. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, unlike in Casey's trial.

The people you just described probably could have done a better job in deliberations than the jury in this case. Take a good look at their educational backgrounds. Half or more are college educated. The most important question from defense was how much do you know about this case. Anyone well informed would have been eliminated and was for that matter.

We still may be surprised to find out what really happened with this jury. Something is wrong when jury members say they all cried because of their verdict of not guilty. That they thought she was guilty of something but the State left them no choice. Then when asked did you go over all the evidence...no they didn't, but why was that. That is the answer I want to hear from them. There is no way they all listened to the evidence and all came to the same conclusion. I just don't believe it. jmo

 

[shotgun09]

Something is wrong when jury members say they all cried because of their verdict of not guilty. That they thought she was guilty of something but the State left them no choice. Then when asked did you go over all the evidence...no they didn't, but why was that. That is the answer I want to hear from them. There is no way they all listened to the evidence and all came to the same conclusion. I just don't believe it. jmo

MOO, But I believe the juror who up and moved out of state..(who ran away!) ...is the one with the answers. My goodness, WHAT happened in deliberations?

 

[Concerned Papa]

All I needed to understand about this jury's level of ability for comprehensive analysis was readily apparant once I realized they had elected the owner of this babble as their leader:

"Well, I thought, you know, for what they -you know, I -- really, in prosecution, when it was over and done with, when they rested, I wanted more. I wanted more. I really thought the prosecution -- I don't know if there was more for them to give. I wanted more, though, because I thought it really put us at that point in a situation where this is going to be -- this is going to be difficult."

AND were standing in line to wash his dirty drawers.

Their actual names seem so very, very unimportant.:banghead:

 

[Aedrys]

WOW Day 3 and all jurors are perfectly fine! Whew...thank goodness that bloodthirsty public is still restraining itself.

:floorlaugh: And Casey is probably so MAD that we're talking about them still and not her! :floorlaugh:

Man, we need a world's smallest violin smiley because that's about the amount of sympathy I feel for the Pinellas 12 right now...

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

All I needed to understand about this jury's level of ability for comprehensive analysis was readily apparant once I realized they had elected the owner of this babble as their leader:



AND were standing in line to wash his dirty drawers.

Their actual names seem so very, very unimportant.:banghead:

I think you've hit it on the head.

Unimportant. Never going no where. Back to their hidey holes. Waiting for someone else to step up and set the tone. Too much reality television (kills me that they got all dressed up for TEE! VEE!) and a soupcon of belligerence "Educated" but not elevated and too dumb to know it. IMHO

 

[logicalgirl]

MOO, But I believe the juror who up and moved out of state..(who ran away!) ...is the one with the answers. My goodness, WHAT happened in deliberations?

I "think" that was the juror who has keeping the tightie whities folded.....

 

[wonders]

Gosh you guys. I get tired of hearing that educated people should be the only people to sit on juries. I'm a high school drop out and I can assure you I would not have let that monster free to roam in this world and the chance to make another blessing to be murdered by her hands like Caylee was. Education has nothing to do with it. Common sence and a willingness to listen and evaluate the evidence is all that is needed.

 

[okiedokietoo]

And as far as pre-trial and trial publicity - I'm in Oklahoma and it was covered during our local evening news.

 

[bayouland]

And a couple of the younger people who were technical said they had no interest at all in the news or newspapers - never read them. Went on to Facebook or their particular interest sites or to play games but that was it. Really quite mind boggling to a nosey parker like me who has to read about everything...:innocent:

Yeah right.

I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona.
From my front porch you can see the sea.
I've got some Oceanfront property in Arizona.
And if you'll buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.

 

[2goldfish]

Gosh you guys. I get tired of hearing that educated people should be the only people to sit on juries. I'm a high school drop out and I can assure you I would not have let that monster free to roam in this world and the chance to make another blessing to be murdered by her hands like Caylee was. Education has nothing to do with it. Common sence and a willingness to listen and evaluate the evidence is all that is needed.

education does not automatically = university JMO

many people manage to educate themselves just fine. look at our investigative threads in this forum alone, some from people who are not chemists (and some from people who are :biglaugh!

I think the posters who are talking about "educated" people rather mean people unlike many in jury selection who claimed (I always hoped they were lying) they never watch the news, only play games on fb online, dont read newspapers or books, etc.

one could hold many phd's in something like byzantine pottery therefore being, on paper, quite educated but if all they do is play facebook games when not looking at plates, they're not really all that educated.

 

[bayouland]

Gosh you guys. I get tired of hearing that educated people should be the only people to sit on juries. I'm a high school drop out and I can assure you I would not have let that monster free to roam in this world and the chance to make another blessing to be murdered by her hands like Caylee was. Education has nothing to do with it. Common sence and a willingness to listen and evaluate the evidence is all that is needed.

I agree with you 100%. Neither of my parents are considered educated but they both told me they would have "hung that jury in a New York second".

Remember what Linda Drane Burdick said? "My biggest fear is that common sense will be lost in all of the rhetoric of the case, "

I feel certain she agrees with you. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the truth, especially when it is staring you in the face.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

There's a big gap between having absolutely no idea what's going on in the world, and following every moment of the pre-trial publicity of this case. I think the best people for the jury in any extremely high profile trial would be those who are aware of the case, but didn't follow it. Think about the Lisa Irwin case; if that goes to trial, why would you want people on the jury who live in KC and have never heard of the case? I'm not saying people have to even recognize the victim/killer's name, but at least knowing that there's a baby that's missing shows some awareness of what's happening around you.

 

[Murphismo]

Actually, MOO, I think being educated about a case is better than NOT knowing anything about it. The major point the judges make during voire dire is "could you be impartial".... I could have been in the ICA case, I could have set aside what I had seen on the news, I mean, after all - to me, there was enough evidence to convict from the trial alone? In the end, we really DO need some seriously revamped jury rules....

 

[Murphismo]

And while we are on the topic of who should sit on a jury, someone who wants to vs someone who does not... When I sit down and really think about it...I really believe every last person on every jury, on some level, does want to be there..... I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, a college education, an "important" job, or three small kids at home to get out of jury duty.... Anyone who wants out can say something incredibly stupid along the lines of "I really don't care about evidence, I don't believe in the American Justice system so I'm going to ignore every bit of evidence and go with my gut....cause that's how I roll"....