Stephan thanks for the judgment I had a browse on the way home yesterday along with the Robinson v Polk case also referred to and then considered the motion again. I am actually less concerned today by it than I was yesterday. Any references below are in regards to the defence motion which has been linked on the previous pages:
A. Private Conversations
The defence alleged that the comments of the foreman suggest that he and/or other jurors were participating in private conversations. They also suggest that the foreman stated that the closing argument 'had an impact'. Looking at this in two halves my own views are as follows:
(1) when asked if the prosecutions closing argument had impacted him, he stated "
i think it impacted everybody, that wasn't a deciding factor though." This sentence immediately preceding the statement they included in their motion. IMO it is wrong to suggest that the foreman suggested he had been impacted by the closing statement in the way that they now suggest.
(2) The defence allege that the foreman's words show that the jurors were participating in private conversations in respect of the case. Looking back on his words, I do not believe this to be the case. He stated
"we felt which way we were going to go, i believe, individually, prior to closing arguments. We didn't discuss a verdict but, in having private conversations everybody, we could read that everybody was going in the same direction, just the level of severity. Nobody voted not guilty' IMO the foreman is describing what occurred during deliberation. We know that in respect of MM there was no agreement on the first day. They would have been having conversations about this. IMO they are, basically, trying to circumvent the non-impeachment of the jurors because he used the words 'private conversations' rather than 'deliberations'. The fact he states '
no one voted not guilty' leads me to think he is quite honestly discussing what went on in deliberations and is not any indication of any other conversation.
In respect of the meeting between the foreman and the other juror. Again, I am less concerned now as I was yesterday. Looking at the Mallory XII video that (I think) Kitty helpfully linked yesterday the foreman states '
we got to know each other pretty well' and '
we are all going for lunch, I am just waiting for a phone call'. This suggests that the jury were having various conversations with each other and, it appears got on reasonably well, in such an instance it can be completely innocuous that they were having a conversation in their free time. It could've been about sport, the weather or their grandmother's scone recipes. Unless they have some sort of evidence to suggest that this conversation was about the trial it is useless.
B. Forming Opinion regarding the Defendant Corbett's Role as Aggressor
This argument appears to stem from a social media post by the forman whereby he stated "
we decided on 2nd degree for both, but feel Molly was the aggressor", this was elaborated upon in another post where he stated "
every one of us believe Jason was asleep when he was hit for the first time. The evidence we saw supports that'. The argument they have put forward seems to suggest that as the Court did not refer to MM as the aggressor the jury were wrong to reach this conclusion. I disagree.
The jurors were privy to the evidence and testimony of Dr James whereby he stated that JC may have been struck for the first time either in, or beside, his bed (
http://www.herald.ie/news/jason-may...suffered-the-first-blow-to-head-35991145.html). Can the Court restrict the jurors making inferences from the evidence they hear? Blood and tissue were found on the brick, the brick TM testified he did not wield, and the brick that MM stated she had attempted to use. JC and MM were in a bedroom with the door closed. She has a weapon. I believe that the jury had every right to consider the facts and evidence before them and come to a conclusion.
C. providing less than candid answers to Court's inquiry regarding fitness to serve
IMO this is a nonsensical argument to put into a motion. The juror became ill whilst looking at the photos. She was asked about it and stated "
it was a combination of not eating breakfast". In fact, IMO, the full text used in the motion hurts their case more than just that line. The judge asked "
as difficult I know as all of this is, do you believe you will be able to continue to view photographs and go forward". IMO her response that it was a combination makes sense when the judge has already raised the fact that the photographs could be hard to look at. Combination means to combine two or more things. I do not believe that the juror in any way contradicted this on 20/20 when she said "
I don't think there's anything or any experience in life that can prepare you to look at those pictures".
E. Expression of opinions by jurors is not shown in the motion. I would find this interesting and await to see what the supplemental affidavit shows. I can only assume shaking of heads etc as the defence and prosecution are not allowed to talk to the jurors whilst the trial is ongoing.
F. Comments showing bias
IMO these are comments made after the end of the trial whereby the jurors have been legally allowed to research the case. I am sure they did.
Jurors have clearly stated that they were watching MM during the trial to see when she reacted to things. She never once reacted to pictures of JC's body. She only seemed to react to images of herself or when the children were mentioned. (page 31 of the defence motion).
I do not think that they were biased against TM due to his FBI background I think they watched him on the stand and came to their own conclusions about him, this is not bias. It was put to TM on
https://mobile.twitter.com/rtwmollyandtom of the motion. I could very well be wrong, but, at present I am in agreement with the DA it is grasping at straws.
All IMO
