GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #10
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #196
- Latest: Willow Knight
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/sites/ncmd/files/handbook_jury.pdf
This is a short book, a copy of handbook to jury.
After the jurors return their verdict and are dismissed by the judge, they are free to go about theirnormal affairs, although in some districts jurors must check with jury office personnel to see iftheir service is concluded. They are under no obligation to speak to any person about the caseand may refuse all requests for interviews or comments. Nevertheless, the court may enter anorder in a specific case that during any such interview, jurors may not give any information withrespect to the vote of any other juror.
This is a short book, a copy of handbook to jury.
After the jurors return their verdict and are dismissed by the judge, they are free to go about theirnormal affairs, although in some districts jurors must check with jury office personnel to see iftheir service is concluded. They are under no obligation to speak to any person about the caseand may refuse all requests for interviews or comments. Nevertheless, the court may enter anorder in a specific case that during any such interview, jurors may not give any information withrespect to the vote of any other juror.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/juror-father-daughter-murder-trial-doubt-mind-guilty/story?id=49141218
This abc article references some of the jurors comments. The bipolar remark I think came from the foreman, not sure of his name.
Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
This abc article references some of the jurors comments. The bipolar remark I think came from the foreman, not sure of his name.
Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
I do think they are grasping at straws and yes I do suspect that they received the info on the bipolar from their meeting with the C's. It is the way that they presented it on the ABC program that would have me concerned, they spoke as if they knew this during the trial. Plus they also said that they observed MM during the trial and made conclusions on her mental state, so this infers that they considered a mental issue on observation. This is a case that keeps on giving all the while inflicting more pain on the C/L/F family. But only to be expected really. The meeting in the car park one stands out to me. Basically, what they are saying is that the Juror met with someone else, not from the Jury, in a car for 15 minutes.
On their point regarding the juror who vomited, they are saying that she is telling two stories as to why she vomited. On the one hand she had not breakfast and on the other she says nothing can prepare you for what you see. I don't really see any problem in this, in fact it is her not influencing the rest of the jury by not saying it was the pictures which turned her stomach.
They would have easily found references to MMs mental state on the Internet through news articles and indeed commentary on news articles well before and during the trial. Facebook and Twitter were hopping. Of course they Googled her and formed an opinion, I would! just such a shame they couldn't stay away from the media and keep that info to themselves for the time being. You can't tell from looking at someone they have bipolar so it came from somewhere. I doubt the corbetts would have discussed this with them.
Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
I would like to think that if I was on a Jury, I would stay away from Social Media, I would take it very seriously. I might be tempted, and yes I would be curious, but I think I would resist.
And they didn't hibernate from the verdict till the time of the ABC program, I am sure that lots of their friends were dying to talk to them after they did their duty, so it is perfectly feasible that they heard it after if not from the C's.
I would take it very seriously too but it's the times we live in. Info on anyone at the touch of a button anytime anywhere. So easy to have a quick look online especially when home in private without anyone ever knowing as long as you don't tell anyone. Wonder how the motion proceeds now? Do they request the jurors they referred to attend the hearing to answer questions?
Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
ABC interviews with jurors came post trial, not during trial.
Post trial all media would have been available to the ex-jurors.
also recall mm's temperment during trial, described in all dailytmail articles.
Recall the article where she stormed out via a side door, almost falling over tripods etc, having taken umbridge at one of the remarks of the prosecution.
Of course their job is to observe the defendants' behaviour..
Of course they saw this.
Of course they observed her bursting into high drama tears when TL responded to prosecution question asking her to name the mother of JC offspring. She replied MC.
Molly cried openly and noisily.
Of course Molly's behaviour following sentencing was in their eye-view. She tried to kill him again.
Of course they noticed she showed no emotion at all when the photographs of her husband's battered skull were placed on display..
Yes, she did indeed manifest different personas throughout the trial. Of course they saw it.
For those of you that are new, I implore you to go back and read previous defence public statements and the numbers of times they lied on public television and newspapers.
Also oif someone feels like sleuthing, might be a good idea to play the Mallory Lane interview with head of jury with that on Winston salem journal.
Check whether any editing had happened.
The time we live in wouldn't affect me, I seriously think that I would resist regardless how curious I was. Now I might have to get someone take my computer away from me so I couldn't scratch that itch or disconnect me internet but no, I don't think I would be googling the case.
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
There is no suggestion that the jury googled the case.Or read social media posts or media articles prior to the verdict.
Their comments post verdict were their own personal observations, there is no suggestion they worked on anything at all apart from the evidence presented, particularly the evidence of the blood spatter forensics expert.
Sadly his entire body of evidence has not been fully reported yet.
from the bits that were reported, the verdict could only have been murder.
He , in fact, proved the case for the prosecution.
There was never any doubt and the defence attempts to disparage him were met and answered wholly and totally.
Absolutely the verdict was only ever going to be murder on what was presented however now the defence has to try and chip away and dig deep for anything even minute to raise any technically. IMO they didn't do much really to earn their million so every trick in the book they can come up has to be tried now to redeem themselves and their reputation of course. They don't like losing. I suggested social media cause this is where they have been trawling clearly looking at commentary so it's a possibility they will explore and they will look to get to the bottom of where the juror got bipolar from. It would be terrible at this point after the corbett family have got closure for everything to be rehashed in further court hearings down to a few jurors making inappropriate comments. Hopefully not much will come of it.
Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk
Law in the US is different than the UK. In most countries, jurors are not allowed to discuss verdicts except in situations where they are traumatized by the jury duty and require professional counselling services.
This tactic doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, it may result in a retrial. I think the jurors will be interviewed separately by the Judge now to determine whether they discussed the case, or accessed media, prior to the verdict. If there is a retrial, I guess the jury has to be sequestered.
It is unfortunate that the Judge did not provide more guidance to the jurors to ensure that they remained silent for at least a period of time. Also, given gruesome nature of the evidence, perhaps they should have been offered counselling services post-trial so they could process their thoughts without speaking to the media.
Thank you Kitty Extremely informative read. I learned a lot
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
He gave the jurors plenty of advice, during the trial. After the trial, when the jurors were discharged, they were free to talk with media if they chose to do so, they are also free to refuse to discuss case with media or anybody else. The comments referenced were made following discharge. and after they would have been set free to discuss case and read all relevant media.
I recall other high profile cases where jurors are whisked away out a side door to protect them from media immediately after the verdict. Perhaps there needs to be more care of jurors post-trial to ensure that they have resources available to them to process the traumatic evidence. As it stands, it seems like they are fed to journalists, which inevitably opens the door to allegations of juror misconduct.
Dumbfounded2
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2016
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
I read everything I could find about this case, everywhere I could find it for the past 2 years. Hoping to find the truth, read every article from MSM, Web Sleuths, and social posts. Even read Keith Maginns, Turning This Thing Around, available on Amazon. I had come to realize that Jason was most likely hit when he was asleep and most vulnerable.
Please know this, when I slid on the wrong side of the court on the very last row for the closing argument in that court room, that I only chose to sit there because the seat meant that no one had to be inconvenienced by my sitting there, no one had to move for me to sit there. On the Corbett side, where I preferred to sit was full and it meant that someone would need to move to accommodate me.
Sitting there, I only expected that the prosecution would explain what they thought happened that night. My only goal was to learn what really happened. Never expected to see graphic evidence. Well. What I a fool I was. Oh no, the prosecution counted every single wound and how it might have occurred with pictures that left no doubt about what happened that night.
Sitting on the very last row/bench behind the Martens, I tried to remain neutral as the evidence was presented. Found myself, someone who expected the worse, knew the story inside and out, not even related to Jason, and I couldnt help but shake my head. It was all I could to do to keep from screaming about the injustice.
That day in court, answered all my questions. Jason was brutally murdered and those convicted are justly served. There could be no doubt what really happened if you saw the graphic evidence presented. Know that there are pictures I did not see, that the jury were provided. Have no doubt that the jury made the right decision.
God Bless Jasons family for NOT flinching. I flinched as hard as I tried not to, thought I was prepared, I was not, and didnt even know Jason personally.
Please know this, when I slid on the wrong side of the court on the very last row for the closing argument in that court room, that I only chose to sit there because the seat meant that no one had to be inconvenienced by my sitting there, no one had to move for me to sit there. On the Corbett side, where I preferred to sit was full and it meant that someone would need to move to accommodate me.
Sitting there, I only expected that the prosecution would explain what they thought happened that night. My only goal was to learn what really happened. Never expected to see graphic evidence. Well. What I a fool I was. Oh no, the prosecution counted every single wound and how it might have occurred with pictures that left no doubt about what happened that night.
Sitting on the very last row/bench behind the Martens, I tried to remain neutral as the evidence was presented. Found myself, someone who expected the worse, knew the story inside and out, not even related to Jason, and I couldnt help but shake my head. It was all I could to do to keep from screaming about the injustice.
That day in court, answered all my questions. Jason was brutally murdered and those convicted are justly served. There could be no doubt what really happened if you saw the graphic evidence presented. Know that there are pictures I did not see, that the jury were provided. Have no doubt that the jury made the right decision.
God Bless Jasons family for NOT flinching. I flinched as hard as I tried not to, thought I was prepared, I was not, and didnt even know Jason personally.
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
what with the abc 20/20 case being so rampantly pushed immediately post verdict, complete with its untruths, inaccuracies and blatant lies and with crime scene photos on board, well before the prosecutor released them to other media, it certainly looks like this was the goal, as you say.
But I read the affidavit and went through each complaint and I see no violations.
Most of the comments were made at end of abc viewing. The facebook comments referred were made on either fox8 or abc20/20, but they were based on juror's individual observations and not on the evidence that proved the allegations and the jurors made it clear their verdicts were reached based on evidence.
I dont believe they are in violation but I do believe they were set up, just one in a long line of dirty tricks that have characterised the defence tactics throughout the investigation and trial.
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
I am glad you went!
Kudos!
kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,052
This is an important document. Upon reading it one should be able to form an opinion on whether the recent defence submission is spurious, vexatious or whether they have a case.
Heres the link http://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Jury Misconduct - April 2017.pdf
It deals specifically with #JuryMisconductNC
heres some extracts.. please read them.
Discovered After the Verdict.1. General Rule: No Impeachment of the Verdict. As a general rule, oncea verdict is rendered, it may not be impeachedthat is, a juror may nottestify nor may evidence be received as to matters occurring duringdeliberations or calling into question the reasons on which the verdict wasbased. See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 101 (1979) (jurors general knowledge of parole eligibility for first-degree murder was not grounds toset aside verdict). Consistent with the general rule, G.S. 15A-1240(a)provides that when there is an inquiry into a verdicts validity, no evidencemay be received to show the effect of any statement, conduct, event, orcondition on a jurors mind or concerning the mental processes by whichthe verdict was determined.
3. Exception to the General Rule: Evidence Rule 606(b). Evidence Rule606(b), which applies in both criminal and civil cases, provides that a juroris competent to testify when the validity of a verdict is challenged, but onlyon the question (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information wasimproperly brought to the jurys attention, or (2) whether any outsideinfluence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.
0).General information that jurors learn in their day-to-dayexperiences does not constitute extraneous information. Compare Statev. Heatwole, 344 N.C. 1, 12 (1996) (jurors communication with hisprofessor about violent tendencies of paranoid schizophrenics was notextraneous information because it did not involve the defendant or thecase being tried), and Rosier, 322 N.C. at 832 (1988) (see summaryabove), with State v. Lyles, 94 N.C. App. 240, 245 (1989) (testimony byjurors was proper under both Rule 606 and G.S. 15A-1240(c)(1) when ajuror peeled paper from the bottom of an exhibit during deliberations anduncovered information that implied that the defendant had prior criminalinvolvement and directly contradicted the defendants alibi witnesses;jurors exposure to the information entitled the defendant to a new trial).See also 1 KENNETH S. BROUN, BRANDIS & BROUN ON NORTH CAROLINAEVIDENCE § 148, at 535-39 (7th ed. 2011) (discussing the antiimpeachmentrule).4. Practice Pointers.
Again, its a 17 page document, too long to analyse here fully.. But do read it. The question seems to be whether anything they did, said, or knew affected the verdict.
They repeatedly stated the verdict came from the evidence.
Heres the link http://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/benchbook.sog.unc.edu/files/pdf/Jury Misconduct - April 2017.pdf
It deals specifically with #JuryMisconductNC
heres some extracts.. please read them.
Discovered After the Verdict.1. General Rule: No Impeachment of the Verdict. As a general rule, oncea verdict is rendered, it may not be impeachedthat is, a juror may nottestify nor may evidence be received as to matters occurring duringdeliberations or calling into question the reasons on which the verdict wasbased. See State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 101 (1979) (jurors general knowledge of parole eligibility for first-degree murder was not grounds toset aside verdict). Consistent with the general rule, G.S. 15A-1240(a)provides that when there is an inquiry into a verdicts validity, no evidencemay be received to show the effect of any statement, conduct, event, orcondition on a jurors mind or concerning the mental processes by whichthe verdict was determined.
3. Exception to the General Rule: Evidence Rule 606(b). Evidence Rule606(b), which applies in both criminal and civil cases, provides that a juroris competent to testify when the validity of a verdict is challenged, but onlyon the question (1) whether extraneous prejudicial information wasimproperly brought to the jurys attention, or (2) whether any outsideinfluence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.
0).General information that jurors learn in their day-to-dayexperiences does not constitute extraneous information. Compare Statev. Heatwole, 344 N.C. 1, 12 (1996) (jurors communication with hisprofessor about violent tendencies of paranoid schizophrenics was notextraneous information because it did not involve the defendant or thecase being tried), and Rosier, 322 N.C. at 832 (1988) (see summaryabove), with State v. Lyles, 94 N.C. App. 240, 245 (1989) (testimony byjurors was proper under both Rule 606 and G.S. 15A-1240(c)(1) when ajuror peeled paper from the bottom of an exhibit during deliberations anduncovered information that implied that the defendant had prior criminalinvolvement and directly contradicted the defendants alibi witnesses;jurors exposure to the information entitled the defendant to a new trial).See also 1 KENNETH S. BROUN, BRANDIS & BROUN ON NORTH CAROLINAEVIDENCE § 148, at 535-39 (7th ed. 2011) (discussing the antiimpeachmentrule).4. Practice Pointers.
Again, its a 17 page document, too long to analyse here fully.. But do read it. The question seems to be whether anything they did, said, or knew affected the verdict.
They repeatedly stated the verdict came from the evidence.
stephanddoody
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 36
Just putting the Mallory lane video here
https://www.facebook.com/wxiimallorylane/videos/681493118715960/
https://www.facebook.com/wxiimallorylane/videos/681493118715960/