Thanks for your thoughtful response. The key thing I was trying to illustrate is how jurors' assumptions/biases etc, inevitably color how they view the evidence, and thus their deliberations.
Another illustration.
Here's the me that is not playing devil's advocate. After this trial I could for the first time sit on a DP-qualified jury. Before this I would have answered no, I could not impose the DP. I would also be telling the truth to say yes, I could vote for life even if the defendant is convicted of a brutal premed murder.
At this point, though, I would be a DT's worse nightmare. Yes, I could vote for life, and saying that I could would not make me a stealth DP juror. The assumption I would carry with me into the jury box, though, is that whatever is being presented in court is skewed.
The DT will try to sully the victim, and what I'll hear will not represent the full truth about the victim. I'll know that the DT has far more latitude in what they get to present, and that the story they are telling me could be nothing more that that.
I'll know that the State's burden is enormous, that pertinent evidence about the defendant wasn't allowed in, that my fellow jurors can be bamboozled by lowered chairs, crocodile tears and the defendant's choice of costume and hairstyle.
I'm not saying that I would presuppose guilt. I am saying that I'm self-aware enough to know that my assumptions would filter the evidence being presented. I would be very unlikely to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant if during deliberations we were discussing an ambiguous piece of evidence, especially if the other pieces of the evidence mosaic were falling into a guilt pattern. And, if convinced of guilt, I would listen to opposing opinions, but I would not back down.
As I said, no DT would want me on their jury.
Agree. I was also trying to put myself in a juror's shoes and determine how I would view her from what I would have gleaned from all the testimony.
If I can later, I will post how my stance on the DP changed during this trial but usually, I would be open to considering something about the defendant that's redeeming or other things contributed to it and the person most likely won't commit another crime for as long as s/he lives.
I was horrified with the Louise Woodward case here. I thought everything she said was self-serving and that she never thought she would pay for what she did. She fake cried on the stand and had periods of CMja-esque snottiness. The DA refused to consider any other charges except First Degree so the only choices for her were First or acquittal.
I did not agree she should have been faced with First Degree because even though I believed what she did was stupid, careless, reckless and idiotic, I still believed she did not intend to kill the baby. She should have foreseen that shaking an infant would result in serious harm or death in her case but it seemed a case better suited for something less than First.
I thought her background/childhood were uneventful and she had no previous issues or run-ins with the law. She was completely unsuitable for a nanny position but she wanted to be in the US and was probably willing to do anything to study here. I thought the agency who vetted her, hired and sent her here was also culpable.
Of course when she was convicted of First degree she collapsed in genuine tears because of what would happen to HER and not necessarily the heartbreak and despair she created for Marthew Eappen's parents.
Just something about Louise and my own biases re: young girls specifically and young kids in general was making me sympathetic towards her while simultaneously (and not "contemporaneously" as the pretentious CMja would incorrectly insert, lolol) being horrified by her crime.
Btw, turns out the jury was split and the jurors voting for acquittal were convinced/persuaded/coerced into voting for conviction.
Her sentence was reduced to involuntary manslaughter and time served, which was a bit over 5 years.
All that to say I get it. But as soft as I can often be, as willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and exert strongly held beliefs regarding certain crimes and those who typically commit them, no one in that room would have convinced me that CMja should be spared. Maybe I would not have been a good juror because no matter what any DT presented, a person who could singe-handedly commit such an obscene massacre does not deserve consideration. Overkill indicates a savage component that can't be fixed, cured or properly explained. And as a juror in that box, none of my previous bias regarding CMja's demographic would have applied. It would have been a hung jury with me on it.
In fact, believe it or not, lol, I would have asserted myself fully and demanded to speak with the judge regarding a foreman who appeared TO ME to be biased and/or misunderstanding the instructions.
But that's just the hard a$$ in me.