The Jury Speaks Thread

[Sweet Fox]

IMO

I vote B

I truly think he had already made up his mind he was not giving DP no matter what. After only a couple hours into deliberations, he started asking the judge what to do if they could not decide. Therefore, I feel he knew he was not going to actually deliberate because his mind was made up and nobody was going to change it.

He did not like the answer she gave and he knew he would never agree with the rest and so his decision was final and he wanted to point that out as a final verdict form. Irregardless of the answer the judge gave him, he independently chose to hammer home the point that this was HIS verdict and he was making it everyones verdict as well because he knew he would never agree with the rest.

I would not be surprised if he was the one confused about thinking the judge would then decide for them, and he may have caused the others to be confused because he maybe explained it wrong to them. Giving them the impression that the judge would decide.

I really think if everyone knew what would happen, they may have tried harder or maybe forced him out of the foreman role. There was only 2 or 3 others voting for Life , so they had a chance to convince the others. He probably would never have changed his vote regardless, but it would have been interesting if he ended up being the final sole vote for life. I think they ended early thinking the judge would call it.

I also vote for B.
After hearing his interviews, IMO his mind was made up long before it even got to the penalty phase. He was not going to vote for the DP under any circumstances and nobody was going to change his mind. He now claims that some of the other jurors initially voted for Life but during the deliberations, they switched their votes to Death. I think he did NOT want to be the only holdout, and rather than risk the other 3 jurors switching their vote to the DP, he ended the deliberations after just 14 hours by intentionally handing in the verdict form.

By not reaching a unanimous Life or Death verdict, I feel the jurors were mislead into believing that the judge would then decide wether JA got Life or Death. Not So!!! The Judge cannot hand down a Death sentence. In fact, Mr. Foreman admitted in an interview, he believed the judge would then have to decide whether to give her LWP or LWOP. In essence, I believe he thought by passing the buck to the Judge, it would take the DP off the table and he’d end up getting the verdict he wanted all along. I’m sure they were all surprised when their failure to reach a unanimous L or D verdict resulted in the judge declaring a mistrial.

JMOO

 

[Sweet Fox]

Ok ...

but the foreman/jury asked the Judge for guidance on which form to use when a unanimous verdict had not yet been reached ...

the Judge answered their question/cleared up their confusion by replying that they were to use the "Juror Question" form ...

and the foreman chose to ultimately use the "Verdict" form, despite the Judges clear response ...

so why, in your opinion, did the foreman use the "Verdict" form when he should have followed the Judges clear direction and used the "Juror Question" form?

a. He was an idiot.
b. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder
c. He was trying to force the Judge into making the life or DP decision.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.​

b. Definately b. in my opinion.

 

[Sydni]

Ok ...

but the foreman/jury asked the Judge for guidance on which form to use when a unanimous verdict had not yet been reached ...

the Judge answered their question/cleared up their confusion by replying that they were to use the "Juror Question" form ...

and the foreman chose to ultimately use the "Verdict" form, despite the Judges clear response ...

so why, in your opinion, did the foreman use the "Verdict" form when he should have followed the Judges clear direction and used the "Juror Question" form?

a. He was an idiot.
b. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder
c. He was trying to force the Judge into making the life or DP decision.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.​

I do not trust this juror, nor do I respect what he has to say in his interviews. His dislike and disrespect for Travis (the victim) was very clear and his "sympathy" for JA was also very clear (although he denied it). I'm not sure what a stealth juror is, but I think he might fit the bill. I believe he had his mind made up from the start. I also believe he was confused under the rules of the law and don't believe he is all that bright, so my vote would be ....

d: a combination of a, b and c ... JMO (but I definitely agree with the "b" voters) ...

I just keep wondering how he got to be foreman. I am thinking that he might have volunteered himself and that was okay with the others. What do y'all think?

 

[JSR]

Do you really think the other three are inclined to speak up after the way the Foreman has been ridiculed and slammed for his choices?

As I've said before, these people took 5-6 months out of their lives to decide this case...that deserves respect. It's easy to sit home in front of the computer and 'decide' someone needs the death penalty. It's another thing all together to actually be in the position of making that decision on a jury!

No one is denying that all the jurors deserve a lot of respect and gratitude for giving up so many months of their lives. Nor are we ultimately saying he's a creep for his choice in voting for life. I think what many, myself included, are mostly upset at are his actual comments. I'm personally livid that he thinks this woman isn't a danger to society and that he believed her testimony that she was emotionally, mentally and verbally abused. And making veiled statements that seem to indicate he believed Travis was in some way responsible for his death and murder. That's what I'm pissed at and I'm pissed he went in there with a closed mind and could have possibly forced the entire jury into a mistrial with them not knowing what would transpire. I personally think he thought she would get life automatically and that he would ultimately win. I bet he's very upset Jodi could still get death.

 

[JudyBolton]

I might have misunderstood you, but are you saying Mr. Foreman should not have been on the jury because he is a salesman? You do know that TA was a salesman for PPL and most of his friends were salesmen for PPL right?

No No - of course not.... I was referring to my previous comment where I stated he was a personality "type" based on the things we know about him:
1. he convinced the other jurors NOT to speak out right away yet he did
2. he has a radio show
3. he obviously wants attention - has he been on several shows now over the space of several weeks - (most jurors just give one of two interviews soon after and then fade away)
4. his own son said his dad "wanted to be famous"
5. he owns and is involved with muscle cars
6. AND FINALLY - he was previously a real estate salesman - which means he has experience with convincing people and closing the deal.

It is the *overall* total picture I was painting of a certain personality type - certainly not just that he is a salesman. My comment that you quoted was referring to the previous comment. He thinks he is smarter than everyone else... he can't stay off TV - possibly he's heard some are disappointed in his decision and he is "convincing" everyone they are wrong and he is right...

 

[cosmos]

Personally, I think Jodi's reverse psychology worked.

By showing the survivor t-shirt to the jurors she was essentially begging them to execute her. But someone who begs to be executed is completely incapable of rational thought. The murder, even though premeditated far in advance, was irrational because she gained nothing from it and could not have reasonably hoped to gain from it. Still guilty enough for life in prison, but not as culpable as someone who murders in hope of gain, which leaves some room for leniency. moo

Unless, of course, the strategy of reverse psychology was the product of a rational and diabolically cunning mind. But if she was smart enough to fool them, then that's allowed in our system. So I can't allow myself to dwell on it.

However, I can't understand the thought process behind saying her age was a mitigating factor. So statements such as that baffle me.

 

[JudyBolton]

Okay, now I'm confused. I assumed that the jury expected the judge to give her LWOP/LWP since they could not agree on death. I never imagined they might think that the buck would completely pass to the judge to decide life or DEATH. Am I misunderstanding?

If they did not expect a mistrial to be declared, then exactly what did they expect to happen after their non-verdict?

I think they were told by the foreman that the judge would decide - whether they thought death was on or off the table - I don't know. But I'm convinced he was the source of their confusion. He has admitted in interviews he was "surprised".

It think they didn't expect this to lead to a new jury with choice of life or death... I think they all expected it to end with them and the surprise was that it did not.

 

[cosmos]

But if the foreman was guilty of juror misconduct, then the remedy is a mistrial.

That's what we got, a remedy for the alleged problem.

 

[bettybaby00]

a rather timely and interesting article from "the ethicist" column which runs in the NYT Magazine every sunday....hope its ok to post!

THE ETHICIST

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN
Published: June 14, 2013

Can a Juror Ever Fudge the Truth?

About 15 years ago, while living in St. Louis, I was summoned for jury duty. The defendant was charged with two counts of murder. During jury selection, I was asked if I supported the death penalty. I don’t. I’m unalterably opposed to capital punishment. But I feared that potential jurors who did not support the death penalty could be automatically disqualified by the prosecution. So I said I agreed with capital punishment. That way, if it came down to it, I might help spare the defendant from execution. But this violated the oath I had taken to tell the truth. Was it ethical for me to lie in order to possibly spare the life of this defendant? NAME WITHHELD​

<mod snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/m...ver-fudge-the-truth.html?ref=theethicist&_r=0

kinda mind blowing for me that this ran right at this time.

eta: Oh :lol: i just noticed that my print copy from the magazine is titled, "Not the Whole Truth," while the online version has a different title???? i think the print one is more accurate to this piece.

 

[elementary]

a rather timely and interesting article from "the ethicist" column which runs in the NYT Magazine every sunday....hope its ok to post!

<snipped for brevity>

What you should have said was this: &#8220;I personally disagree with the state of Missouri&#8217;s position on capital punishment, but &#8212; if selected &#8212; I will perform my duty to the best of my abilities, within the framework of my own conscience.&#8221; This, as you note, may have automatically disqualified you from service (and if you said those words exactly as I just wrote them, you might also get marginalized for speaking like a weird robot). But it&#8217;s equally possible you&#8217;d have been perceived as someone who is both serious and reasonable, which is what lawyers on both sides would claim to want from any juror (assuming both sides think they can make a serious, reasonable argument).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/m...ver-fudge-the-truth.html?ref=theethicist&_r=0

kinda mind blowing for me that this ran right at this time.

eta: Oh :lol: i just noticed that my print copy from the magazine is titled, "Not the Whole Truth," while the online version has a different title???? i think the print one is more accurate to this piece.

Great and timely article. Thanks!

I still think that the proposed solution is a prevarication. Kinda weasily, actually. Because, in effect, that person is not going to change their mind, ever. They have an agenda and they should be totally honest in asserting that they don't believe in the DP and will never give it.

 

[Brooke]

Great and timely article. Thanks!

I still think that the proposed solution is a prevarication. Kinda weasily, actually. Because, in effect, that person is not going to change their mind, ever. They have an agenda and they should be totally honest in asserting that they don't believe in the DP and will never give it.

Wholeheartedly agree with you. Anything less is not the "whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

 

[JudyBolton]

a rather timely and interesting article from "the ethicist" column which runs in the NYT Magazine every sunday....hope its ok to post!



.

Thanks for posting ~ Unfortunately I think this happens more than we know

 

[bettybaby00]

Great and timely article. Thanks!

I still think that the proposed solution is a prevarication. Kinda weasily, actually. Because, in effect, that person is not going to change their mind, ever. They have an agenda and they should be totally honest in asserting that they don't believe in the DP and will never give it.

Yes, but at least that sort of answer wouldn't be complete BS. And the prosecution would likely see through it and dismiss him. idk why but i find it funny how the juror never states if he was actually picked?

Thanks for posting ~ Unfortunately I think this happens more than we know

I'm beginning to think you're right! I know for myself, that I'm very conflicted over whether or not I could vote for the DP if I were a juror, but I do know that I would be honest about that during jury selection.

 

[JudyBolton]

I'm beginning to think you're right! I know for myself, that I'm very conflicted over whether or not I could vote for the DP if I were a juror, but I do know that I would be honest about that during jury selection.

Wish everyone was that honest Betty - I would have no problem (see following my name).....

 

[TartLemon]

The jury saw the evidence and processed it. Case closed, IMO. There is no need for any of them to explain themselves.

I have a problem with their pursuit of celebrity.

 

[bettybaby00]

Wish everyone was that honest Betty - I would have no problem (see following my name).....

((((hugs)))) to you!!!!!

i can certainly understand why you would have such a strong opinion!!!!

i also suspect that possibly some of the jurors might have gone into this with the belief that they could render a DP verdict, but when push came to shove, the reality had them questioning that belief.

i can appreciate that....but again, time for honesty if that is what happened with some of the jurors. tell the judge and take yourself out!!!

 

[TartLemon]

It is also possible this jury would have no problem rendering a DP verdict, but some didn't feel this case warranted it.

 

[JudyBolton]

((((hugs)))) to you!!!!!

i can certainly understand why you would have such a strong opinion!!!!

I just pray Travis' family is not subjected to what her family has been.... 29 years (that is YEARS) of appeals - his life sentence was overturned - her brother and sister just had to go back through the whole mess this year (29 years later) - had to hear the gruesome details of her rape, abduction- thrown off a bridge!

So when people say the family should just take life - it can almost be a life sentence to them as well.....

In case anyone is interested :http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/man-found-guilty-of-murder-kidnapping-in-29-year-o/nWJfq/

Hope I'm not breaking any "rules" - but it does relate to this case as it shows how a family can be tormented by having to continually go back and back and back to court to represent their loved one.

 

[jacalyn]

I just pray Travis' family is not subjected to what her family has been.... 29 years (that is YEARS) of appeals - his life sentence was overturned - her brother and sister just had to go back through the whole mess this year (29 years later) - had to hear the gruesome details of her rape, abduction- thrown off a bridge!

So when people say the family should just take life - it can almost be a life sentence to them as well.....

In case anyone is interested :http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/man-found-guilty-of-murder-kidnapping-in-29-year-o/nWJfq/

Hope I'm not breaking any "rules" - but it does relate to this case as it shows how a family can be tormented by having to continually go back and back and back to court to represent their loved one.

Read the story and it infuriates me how much the victim and victim's family is put through and the rights this piece of zoo dirt gets. Doesn't the state have better things to do with taxpayers money. Its bad enough he's allowed to take up space in their/our world. She was beautiful and intelligent, what a loss to our society. Sorry you lost your friend she obviously was a kind person.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

For anyone who hasn't seen 12 Angry Men , it is scheduled to be shown at 4:00AM (EDT) tomorrow. This is an intelligent film that shows the inner workings of a jury that must decide on the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of murdering his father.

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/94081/12-Angry-Men/