Names of Jurors just Released

[Irish_Eyes]

Didn't see this posted here yet, or perhaps I missed it:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/217267/19/Id-like-to-buy-jurors-pit-bulls-says-Jose-Baez

 

[RR0004]

Yes, you did come to the decision of Caylee's guilt on your own, and yes, you were here from the get go. I have always respected your opinion

I would like to hear from these jurors, preferably several at once, and on a live show, where editing would be minimal or non existant. I think it would be interesting to hear what they had to say.

Who knows, they might all say, we know that witch was guilty as sin, but we only had a strong belief that she was guilty as sin, and when CM put up the reasonable doubt chart, the chart said strong belief did not equal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither JA nor HHBP objected to CM's chart, so it must have been legally accurate. So even though we had a strong belief she was guilty, the prosecution did not prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we had to come back with a verdict of not guilty.

It is the same old story here though. We can speculate about what they may say, what they may not say, and what the media might speculate about what it means if they do or don't talk now that their names have been revealed. But, unless they choose to speak, all we can do is speculate.

Now........ if they speak, after they speak, then we can speculate on what they meant when they said what they said LOL

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I wish I could care about what they have to say, but I don't. They have to live with themselves regardless of what they believe to be true.
"Stupid" makes me crazy. Something I picked up from my lawyer dad. Not the best trait, I know.
oxoxoxox

 

[RR0004]

Didn't see this posted here yet, or perhaps I missed it:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/217267/19/Id-like-to-buy-jurors-pit-bulls-says-Jose-Baez

Holding his own at Harvard...not likely. G-d that made me laugh.
What a wonderful gesture to offer pit bulls? Coming from a media hound no less.
Can this man please just go away?

 

[RR0004]

(respectfully snipped)

They wouldn't become 'everybody's darling' or loved. They'd become someone who got it wrong and then admitted it.
Why would someone who let a killer go free because they got it wrong suddenly become endeared to anyone?

I guess the same way the DT would like us to feel sorry for Casey because she was an abused child.

 

[wallflower67]

I don't want them stalked or anyting but I wish they would explain how they got from "dead child in trash heap while in care of mother" to "not guilty" of anything but lying.

I'm kind of hoping they don't explain. The ones that have spoken up have only made me feel worse about their decision, not better! If they start talking I think I'm just going to skim posts for firey angry faces before I read. If there are too many of them I'll skip for my own sanity!

 

[bonniez451]

My personal take on the jurors, this was a group that most really did not want any part of the world invading the personal space of their life and I believe that it meant more besides just jury duty the always consistant I don't want to be involved and will walk on by someone needing assistance. I believe HHJH saw this in most and that's why he coddled them as much as he did. The jury foreman definatly a manipulater and enjoying it because in the real world he can't do it and for this real passive group it was his time. I would be hard to convince that the main players of this group did not discuss the trial and when it came time to deliberate and found out they could be there longer voting a certain way they knew what they were going to do, leaving there notes on their seats was a give away, they didn't get scared or feel guilty until they realized what they did. They were imo taught in that limited time that it was about them not about the victim Caylee one of the things lost in responsibilities of a jurist. I would like to see a better way for a jury to be educated on their responsibility other than a judge reading them that is a definate zone out I also have to say I seesaw about names, pros and cons.
Well that's my opinion and I do believe they should be held accountable in some way for not being an adult in doing there job.

 

[Hope4More]

Beach: I don't buy the "public's right to know" argument. Those performing their civic duty should have a right to confidentiality (if they so choose) and it should trump the " public's right to know".

I agree, and absolutely, actually. IMO, the public has no right to know the names of individuals serving on any jury, anywhere, for anything. And IMO it is wrong to put jurors and their families in potential jeopardy (real or imagined) for no compelling reasonl.

Jurors' safety, though, isn't for me the only reason to seal jurors' names. Also at stake is a larger principle. The jury system is predicated on the notion of jury as a GROUP of one's peers. Yes, individuals comprise the group, and yes each individual has a separate & unique responsibility during the process of deliberation, but only what the jury does and decides as a group is relevant.

Consider how judges address the jury when a verdict is reached. Juries are addressed as a single entity, a collective. Individual jurors can only be asked for a yes or no as it relates to the group's work.

Start down the media-driven path of making stars and villains out of individual jurors and what you will eventually up with in that jury room are individuals placing their own individual best interests over any other consideration.

What a travesty that would be, especially since it is avoidable. Seal jurors' names.

 

[com n sense]

God No Salem...I would never intrude on someones personal space in that way. I should have been more specific...Sorry!

The picture is of JB during the verdict video. Is this not permitted? I've seen it done on other threads. It pertains to the connection between JB and the jury to support my theory...JB -possible jury tampering. The focus is on JB...NOT the jurors. If you think this is still inappropriate, let me know. Would it fit better in another thread? I will not post until I know it's OK.

I agree..I don't think we need any pictures of the jurors posted...Thanks!

Sounds like you & I have the same theory. I hope what ever happened, the whole truth comes out someday soon.

 

[logicalgirl]

I totally agree. I felt the same panic, fear and anger when I found out that my name was released after convicting a child molester who was the son of a very wealthy, high profile, influential famiy in the 2nd largest city in Alabama. At the time I had 3 young kids and I wanted to just go back home, de-stress and get back to "normal". (I was sequestered for 2 weeks) omg...I was paranoid enough, I cannot even begin to imagine convicting a gang member! I completely understand where you are coming from. :hug:

Voir dire didn't bother me. I understood why they needed to know my occupation, # of children, whatever other innocuous questions they asked... but WTH was my NAME anyone's business?

I don't buy the "public's right to know" argument. Those performing their civic duty should have a right to confidentiality (if they so choose) and it should trump the " public's right to know".

Other than the media rolleyes, I cannot think of one single reason why anyone should WANT to know. I don't agree with this jury's verdict, I don't have any respect for the lack of serious deliberations...I don't like anything about the outcome of this case but who gives a darn what a juror's name is? I don't get it.


eta: I personally believe juror's names should be sealed and ONLY opened if there is an serious issue of juror misconduct that has been investigated and deemed worthy of charges.

Interesting Beach - and I too have had the same experience but as a family service advocate and I was testifying in a brutal battering case against a young mother and her son. I was repeatedly threatened by the defendant - I believe it was about cutting up my face - but if we bend to that kind of bullying, what becomes of our social structure. I believed enough in the end result of the law process enough to move ahead with it in spite of bullying threats - sticks and stones, etc. That person knew who I was and where I lived and where I worked going into this case - and in the end - this family was protected. It seemed worth the risk to me.

 

[com n sense]

Though some of the characters in the extremely ugly life of OCA bear culpability to varying degrees while many others are completely innocent, it is remarkable how many lives this one young woman has damaged, twisted, or outright destroyed.

It really is no exaggeration to say she has left no person unscathed she has ever had more than casual contact with.


Her own baby daughter: murdered.

All of her "friends" : lied to, stolen from, accused by OCA of crimes.

All of her family: lied to, stolen from, accused by OCA.

Thousands of volunteers who tried to help: lied to, time and resources


stolen, betrayed.


A complete stranger: lied about, accused of kidnapping, her reputation destroyed.

Her own attorney: under investigation.

Other members of her DT- ridiculed, scorned, demonstrating their basest selves

A jury of 12: ridiculed, scorned, blamed, fearful.

What a track record.

And she always walks away smelling like a rose.
Isn't this what they call a true full blown socio path?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I don't wish these people any harm...but I do hope that they will be served up the same "justice" in life as Caylee was given in death by them.

 

[Hope4More]

:seeya: Logical Girl....

Please excuse my bad manners in replying to your post addressed to Beach....

I don't think anyone is saying that jurors should be excused from serving because of the potential of harm to themselves. I know I'm not. But it is a different thing to serve and then to have you name released to the public.

I don't believe that any of the P-12 are in danger, just at risk of being annoyed for a few days before the media loses interest. I'm not so sure they would have been altogether safe if their names had been released immediately though. IMO, Perry did the right thing to at least delay the release.

I've done scary jury duty too, in a case against a significant drug dealer here in a violent city where potential witnesses are murdered fairly routinely. It was chilling to have the accused stare down each us on the jury, repeatedly. Intimidation didn't and wouldn't prevent me from serving, but I might well feel differently if I knew ahead of time that my name and address would be released for anyone to see. No thanks to that.

 

[logicalgirl]

:seeya: Logical Girl....

Please excuse my bad manners in replying to your post addressed to Beach....

I don't think anyone is saying that jurors should be excused from serving because of the potential of harm to themselves. I know I'm not. But it is a different thing to serve and then to have you name released to the public.

I don't believe that any of the P-12 are in danger, just at risk of being annoyed for a few days before the media loses interest. I'm not so sure they would have been altogether safe if their names had been released immediately though. IMO, Perry did the right thing to at least delay the release.

I've done scary jury duty too, in a case against a significant drug dealer here in a violent city where potential witnesses are murdered fairly routinely. It was chilling to have the accused stare down each us on the jury, repeatedly. Intimidation didn't and wouldn't prevent me from serving, but I might well feel differently if I knew ahead of time that my name and address would be released for anyone to see. No thanks to that.

No problem and I wasn't really "addressing" Beach because I think we all have to make those decisions for ourselves. But don't lawyers, judges, anyone on the police force, social workers, probation officers etc face these concerns everyday?

Anytime we do anything in public or as a public service - we put ourselves out there. It is pretty easy if someone wants to find you - to find you. Even without releasing names and addresses - unless you are sitting behind a screen in the courtroom - your name is out there. I think the majority of the media who were involved in this case knew the names and addresses of all of these jurors. We no longer live in a world where privacy is expected unless we live in a cave somewhere. I'm not trying to negate fear at all - there can be good cause for it - i just think the world is full of risks - some serious. Not sure that is cause to do nothing.

I'd also like to add I have no interest at all in who these people are, or where they live. However, I do want to hear what they have to say. And there is something about "secret" jurors I am not comfortable with.

 

[LambChop]

Each and every juror had the chance to excuse themselves from the jury for hardship reasons. They all, all of them, wanted to be on this jury. They all agreed to consider the evidence. This was a case by the State and they were suppose to consider evidence presented by the State. One of the questions was who was Caylee's caretaker and they could not agree on that so they never decided. They were asked to consider the State's evidence and weigh it against the defense's evidence. The defense had no evidence, only theories. They were asked to consider if KC was responsible for the death of Caylee and they could not decide that but considered others who were not on trial. They clearly did not reread the jury instructions or did not understand them. Obviously they were taking directions from a foreman that was clueless because he told them they could not consider the 31 days in their deliberation. The most important part of the whole trial and he blew it off as "nothing we can consider".

In essence they did not do their job. It's plain and simple. If nothing more than learning what went wrong with this jury I would like some of them to speak out. I believe some may have some very valuable information to share. jmo

 

[cityslick]

No problem and I wasn't really "addressing" Beach because I think we all have to make those decisions for ourselves. But don't lawyers, judges, anyone on the police force, social workers, probation officers etc face these concerns everyday?

Anytime we do anything in public or as a public service - we put ourselves out there. It is pretty easy if someone wants to find you - to find you. Even without releasing names and addresses - unless you are sitting behind a screen in the courtroom - your name is out there. I think the majority of the media who were involved in this case knew the names and addresses of all of these jurors. We no longer live in a world where privacy is expected unless we live in a cave somewhere. I'm not trying to negate fear at all - there can be good cause for it - i just think the world is full of risks - some serious. Not sure that is cause to do nothing.

I'd also like to add I have no interest at all in who these people are, or where they live. However, I do want to hear what they have to say. And there is something about "secret" jurors I am not comfortable with.

I think the difference here is in those professions you have listed, the person chooses to do that profession, so they know what they are getting into beforehand. A juror usually is selected to perform a civic duty and in times is thrust into cases (such as this one) where they would have never has chosen to be part of the spotlight otherwise. A juror should not have any obligation to do any interview or answer any question from the media based on whatever verdict they render. A juror should not be submitted to having his/her personal and private life exposed simply because they were chosen to perform a civic duty, no matter how controversial the verdict they render is.

 

[logicalgirl]

Beach: I don't buy the "public's right to know" argument. Those performing their civic duty should have a right to confidentiality (if they so choose) and it should trump the " public's right to know".

I agree, and absolutely, actually. IMO, the public has no right to know the names of individuals serving on any jury, anywhere, for anything. And IMO it is wrong to put jurors and their families in potential jeopardy (real or imagined) for no compelling reasonl.

Jurors' safety, though, isn't for me the only reason to seal jurors' names. Also at stake is a larger principle. The jury system is predicated on the notion of jury as a GROUP of one's peers. Yes, individuals comprise the group, and yes each individual has a separate & unique responsibility during the process of deliberation, but only what the jury does and decides as a group is relevant.

Consider how judges address the jury when a verdict is reached. Juries are addressed as a single entity, a collective. Individual jurors can only be asked for a yes or no as it relates to the group's work.

Start down the media-driven path of making stars and villains out of individual jurors and what you will eventually up with in that jury room are individuals placing their own individual best interests over any other consideration.

What a travesty that would be, especially since it is avoidable. Seal jurors' names.

But isn't this exactly what is happening when you seal the jurors names? Placing their own individual best interests over any other consideration?

 

[cityslick]

[/B]

But isn't this exactly what is happening when you seal the jurors names? Placing their own individual best interests over any other consideration?

Just FYI, not all states automatically allow jurors names to be unsealed.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Each and every juror had the chance to excuse themselves from the jury for hardship reasons. They all, all of them, wanted to be on this jury. They all agreed to consider the evidence. This was a case by the State and they were suppose to consider evidence presented by the State. One of the questions was who was Caylee's caretaker and they could not agree on that so they never decided. They were asked to consider the State's evidence and weigh it against the defense's evidence. The defense had no evidence, only theories. They were asked to consider if KC was responsible for the death of Caylee and they could not decide that but considered others who were not on trial. They clearly did not reread the jury instructions or did not understand them. Obviously they were taking directions from a foreman that was clueless because he told them they could not consider the 31 days in their deliberation. The most important part of the whole trial and he blew it off as "nothing we can consider".

In essence they did not do their job. It's plain and simple. If nothing more than learning what went wrong with this jury I would like some of them to speak out. I believe some may have some very valuable information to share. jmo

Eh, not exactly. You can say it will be a hardship for you, but that doesn't automatically excuse you from jury duty. Not being excused from jury duty doesn't always equal wanting to be on the jury. It means that your stated reason and/or excuse was not accepted by the court, for whatever reason.

For example, during the voir dire I sat in on in September, we had three people who stated that jury duty would be a hardship for them because of their jobs. They excused two, but kept the third person. I don't know whether he was really happy to serve or not - but I can guess he didn't really want to be there for it, given his stated hardship during voir dire. I don't think you can extrapolate being seated as a juror as wanting to be on a jury.

 

[hornswoggled]

I feel that jurors hearing any case in our country should have the absolute right to remain anonymous. We are all potential jurors. Sometimes it is a dangerous job even though it is a civic duty.

If a juror decides to go before the media, that is his/her right. However any individual juror should not have the right to release the names of the other jurors serving with him/her.

I have big issues with the Pinellas jury. They did not spend enough time reviewing evidence or request to see anything except the heart sticker. It concerns me that they may have based part of their decision on that sticker alone, and didn't request to examine more evidence. It appears from the outside looking in that they simply wanted out of there ASAP. It feels and appears all wrong considering the scope of the witnesses called and the evidence presented in this case. But their names should be irrelevant. What possible good would come from knowing their names? They are one unit to me "The Pinellas 12". I don't care to know what their individual names are.

 

[Oldsoul2]

I hope the jurors never talk to the press - there is nothing they can say that will change my opinion - that they did not know what they were doing and did not, I repeat, did not spend ample amount of time going over the evidence during deliberations which leads me to also think that there is a possibility that at least a few of them, did discuss the the trial before deliberation.I figure the law of averages would be that sometimes a seated jury would consist of geniuses, sometimes a mix of genius and average everyday people and sometimes fools -

I agree with you but I will say that they based their decision on how they were TOLD to base it. What I mean by that is the court instructs legal jargon, directions on how to come to a verdict based on REASONABLE doubt. IMO I think what they understood was, if you think there is any possibility that she didn't do it than she is not guilty on ALL charges. Not, go through the evidence diligently and if the evidence that is presented does not appear to be any way possible that this person committed the crime, than the verdict should be not guilty. Now, of course you need to have a jury that understands what exactly this means which I believe is where the problem layed.

As far as their verdict, whether or not they speak to the media or not, it doesn't change the fact they made a grave error in judgment and they unfortunately will be effected by the general pop simply by having their names out there, is it fair? They knew coming in that this case was nationally televised and their verdict would be scrutinized either way, I guess, stay off the jury chair and off the television if this is something you couldn't handle, I'm sure it was dicussed with each one prior since they too have rights.