Names of Jurors just Released

[believe09]

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"....

:floorlaugh: Not a chance Baez would have excused a juror like that :innocent:

 

[Murphismo]

:floorlaugh: Not a chance Baez would have excused a juror like that :innocent:

Touchee!:floorlaugh:

 

[LambChop]

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

I guess that would be embarassing if it were to get out to local friends and coworkers. Not that this was the same person but what was this woman thinking???? jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I guess that would be embarassing if it were to get out to local friends and coworkers. Not that this was the same person but what was this woman thinking???? jmo

I can only think she was the "true housewife" type of person and looking after whatever alpha male is in the "household" is what she believes she should be doing...seriously...

 

[LambChop]

I can only think she was the "true housewife" type of person and looking after whatever alpha male is in the "household" is what she believes she should be doing...seriously...

I remember my MIL loved to wash. It was her favorite household chore. She work, too, for an insurance company, raised four children. But she loved washing clothes and hanging them out on the line and how they smelled after bringing them in. But, even she would have drawn the line at washing a stranger's undies. lol

 

[logicalgirl]

I remember my MIL loved to wash. It was her favorite household chore. She work, too, for an insurance company, raised four children. But she loved washing clothes and hanging them out on the line and how they smelled after bringing them in. But, even she would have drawn the line at washing a stranger's undies. lol

Did I say this woman's actions were "a good thing" as Martha would say? :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

Did I say this woman's actions were "a good thing" as Martha would say? :waitasec:

I'm sure it was perfectly innocent on her part. He may have come into the laundry room and put too much soap in the washer so she offered to do it for him. lol But can you imagine how she felt when he mentioned it. Not something you would want mentioned on national TV. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm sure it was perfectly innocent on her part. He may have come into the laundry room and put too much soap in the washer so she offered to do it for him. lol But can you imagine how she felt when he mentioned it. Not something you would want mentioned on national TV. jmo

Was kind of wondering what her husband if she has one - had to say about it and what kind of ribbing he got from his friends and co-workers if they have those. :floorlaugh:

Really - gives us a clue to the makeup of the jury foreman...:crazy:

 

[MsMacGyver]

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?

This is a great example of what bothers me. A citizen of the United States served on a jury. She didn't ask to be choosen, she didn't ask to be sequestered. None of us know what went on during deliberations.
This woman was so afraid she felt the need to run and hide.

Am I the only one that see's something so wrong with this picture. Don't tell me if she had done her job she wouldn't have needed to feel this way.
As an American I feel for whatever reason...one of my fellow Americans...
felt unsafe in her own home. That alone should give us pause...:waitasec:

Look what happened to our Vietnam Vets...Should we not have learned our lesson then....We live in the UNITED States...jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

This is a great example of what bothers me. A citizen of the United States served on a jury. She didn't ask to be choosen, she didn't ask to be sequestered. None of us know what went on during deliberations.
This woman was so afraid she felt the need to run and hide.

Am I the only one that see's something so wrong with this picture. Don't tell me if she had done her job she wouldn't have needed to feel this way.
As an American I feel for whatever reason...one of my fellow Americans...
felt unsafe in her own home. That alone should give us pause...:waitasec:

Look what happened to our Vietnam Vets...Should we not have learned our lesson then....We live in the UNITED States...jmo

In my brief look over of Jury duty laws and a summary of your Constitution, nowhere does it say you may be obliged to launder and fold the Jury foreman's drawers
but if you do you may be the butt of a few jokes and :banghead: ..

Sure I can see the media chasing this one juror in particular...I mean - what a story! Way too much coincidence the Foreman mentions this little tidbit and we hear of one mature female juror leaving the state and in hiding....1 + 1 =....uh huh .....

 

[Hope4More]

http://global.christianpost.com/new...for-more-secrecy-in-high-profile-cases-59726/

Two tidbits from this article, in which both JA and CM argue for more secrecy...

First:

"Ashton, who helped prosecute the case, urged for more secrecy surrounding information pertaining to trials of national interest. “I would eliminate discovery from public records," Ashton said. (...) Defense attorney Cheney Mason echoed the former prosecutors sentiments (...)"

Second, score one for irony:

"Despite the lawyers arguing for more secrecy surrounding high-profile trials, both Mason and Ashton are writing tell-all books about the Casey Anthony trial."

Hmm.

 

[LambChop]

http://global.christianpost.com/new...for-more-secrecy-in-high-profile-cases-59726/

Two tidbits from this article, in which both JA and CM argue for more secrecy...

First:

"Ashton, who helped prosecute the case, urged for more secrecy surrounding information pertaining to trials of national interest. “I would eliminate discovery from public records," Ashton said. (...) Defense attorney Cheney Mason echoed the former prosecutors sentiments (...)"

Second, score one for irony:

"Despite the lawyers arguing for more secrecy surrounding high-profile trials, both Mason and Ashton are writing tell-all books about the Casey Anthony trial."

Hmm.

As far as CM goes...what happened to Attorney/client priviledge???

 

[What'sThatClue]

As far as CM goes...what happened to Attorney/client priviledge???

I was wondering about that myself. Plus, there is still an appeal pending, plus other lawsuits. How can he even say one tell-all word?

 

[Hope4More]

As far as CM goes...what happened to Attorney/client priviledge???

Well now, there's an excellent question. Lends credence to the thought that he'll use the book to bash and not much else. I'm sure GA and CA will be bashed the most, because the Ants as a dysfunctional family was the cornerstone for the DT's fairy tale about OCA's innocence and her pitiless/heedless 31 day post-murder spree.

Whatever he says about OCA --nothing worth reading about in the first place, see above---will have to be couched in multiple layers of hypotheticals if he is to retain privilege.

 

[2goldfish]

As far as CM goes...what happened to Attorney/client priviledge???

do we know the book is for sure about OCA trial? or is he just using his infamy at random, and it's not actually about the case?

although my idea is that it's about the case, with her blessing - he's prolly gonna give her all proceeds to get her off his back

I cant see him doing it simply to rehabilitate her...unlike JB IMO CM is not a stupid man, he is sly like a fox. he knows nothing will rehab her, nothing. he wouldnt even try.

 

[Aedrys]

Well now, there's an excellent question. Lends credence to the thought that he'll use the book to bash and not much else. I'm sure GA and CA will be bashed the most, because the Ants as a dysfunctional family was the cornerstone for the DT's fairy tale about OCA's innocence and her pitiless/heedless 31 day post-murder spree.

Whatever he says about OCA --nothing worth reading about in the first place, see above---will have to be couched in multiple layers of hypotheticals if he is to retain privilege.

Oh Lordy, Lordy. If he's going after the A's, guess what the response is going to be from them! We're going to have a book war on our hands and probably a lawsuit for slander. Cindy said that no one messes with the Anthonys! I don't think CM knows the fire he's about to start if that's the direction his book is going to take. Or maybe he doesn't care.

 

[coolbreeze]

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

How about generic juror questions when you get your drivers license or voter registration card?

 

[LambChop]

How about generic juror questions when you get your drivers license or voter registration card?

Don't 18 year olds change their minds......like every 10 minutes??? I don't think that would work. jmo

 

[coolbreeze]

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

When you register to vote or get a drivers license might be a good time to answer generic jury questions.

 

[chefmom]

All of this talk about CM writing a tell-all book makes me wonder if KC has waived her A/C privilege for a fee? :waitasec: Perhaps this is how she will get money for her "story"? Since she clearly is a liar, she can get someone else to spread her carp for her. For a fee, of course! :furious: