GUILTY AZ - Dale Harrell, 34, beaten to death, Gilbert, 14 Jan 2009 #3

  • #261
These jurors said that they could recommend death. Why so much hesitation when it comes down to it? I really think a lot of jurors are not honest when it comes to this question. Or they say 'yes' when they actually mean they will recommend death only for serial killers or the like.

Because they all have in the back of their minds the possibility that they're wrong & they've made a mistake. I'm not saying I think she's innocent (I don't) but there's a study out today that as many as 4% of the people on death row may be actually innocent. Not just undeserving of the DP for their crime, but actually, factually innocent. So it's a deeply serious thing to vote for it. Just because they said they could vote for it was not a statement that they *would* no matter what. For a lot of people they only want the DP for the really really bad crimes... like as you say serial killers, terrorists, torturers..... then you have the factor of gender and motherhood coming in and influencing certain jurors. That certainly happened in the JA case. Older men won't give the DP to women; women don't like giving the DP to mothers.

Which is why I don't like the requirement that it be unanimous. Let the judge make the decision based on a majority vote of the jury, and cut all this short.

Rant over.... just my opinion. Back to work now bye.
 
  • #262
  • #263
OH, I know, Chelly.
The same place they found the Penellas 12. :facepalm:
 
  • #264
I'm sorry for the levity in such serious business here. :(
 
  • #265
  • #266
OH, I know, Chelly.
The same place they found the Penellas 12. :facepalm:

And the foreman of the JA trial. Sorry. I. just. cannot. forget. :banghead:
 
  • #267
Because they all have in the back of their minds the possibility that they're wrong & they've made a mistake. I'm not saying I think she's innocent (I don't) but there's a study out today that as many as 4% of the people on death row may be actually innocent. Not just undeserving of the DP for their crime, but actually, factually innocent. So it's a deeply serious thing to vote for it. Just because they said they could vote for it was not a statement that they *would* no matter what. For a lot of people they only want the DP for the really really bad crimes... like as you say serial killers, terrorists, torturers..... then you have the factor of gender and motherhood coming in and influencing certain jurors. That certainly happened in the JA case. Older men won't give the DP to women; women don't like giving the DP to mothers.

Which is why I don't like the requirement that it be unanimous. Let the judge make the decision based on a majority vote of the jury, and cut all this short.

Rant over.... just my opinion. Back to work now bye.

I agree!
 
  • #268
I'm sorry for the levity in such serious business here. :(

It's the only thing that prevents me from giving up on this trial!
 
  • #269
Well Friends, I live in NM, home of the Levi Chavez jury, remember that?
Nothing to be proud of here either.

Gotta git.

Tomorrow!
 
  • #270
Michael Kiefer‏@michaelbkiefer·34 secs
Not today either. The Marissa DeVault jury just left for the day.
 
  • #271
Jen's Trial Diaries ‏@TrialDiariesJ 42s

Looks like the jury left for the day wth? #MarissaDeVault
 
  • #272
Uh....that explains why I've never been called for jury duty.......?:floorlaugh:

I would never be a good juror- I tend to tell the truth and they would never pick me. The 2 times I was called, I told the truth (as I saw it) and they kicked me to the floor. Besides, I'm not "death qualified".
 
  • #273
And the foreman of the JA trial. Sorry. I. just. cannot. forget. :banghead:

I think his son said it all when he posted that 'no one was getting the DP under his watch' (or words distinctly to that effect), he fibbed when he said he could give it and he baloneyed the rest of them when he said it wouldn't be hung to do what they did and actually hung the sentencing verdict.

I can understand when they answer yes to being able to give it and then have a difficult time doing so, they answer that question before the trial begins and they've heard the facts of the case, but Mr. Foreman in the JA case already had an agenda, which is what I did not like about that, even though I'm anti-DP.
 
  • #274
See everyone tomorrow. I'm going to see what's happening @ the Travis Sidebar (if anything- it's so dead there now and most of the time, I'm talking to myself :facepalm:)

Thanks, everyone. :seeya:
 
  • #275
I would never be a good juror- I tend to tell the truth and they would never pick me. The 2 times I was called, I told the truth (as I saw it) and they kicked me to the floor. Besides, I'm not "death qualified".

OMG, I told the truth so goodly that I got all 30 of us prospective jurors dismissed from the case. Judge was not happy with me. :blushing:
 
  • #276
  • #277
What is the jury thinking here, if I may ask?
The welfare of defendants children? She's not going home to take care of them- she's going to prison for years to come, whether it's death or life in prison.
What does this mean? Maybe I'm stupid.


Hi everyone =)

I took time away from all trials/news and I was worried there'd be a verdict before I came back.
What was I thinking?? This is an AZ jury!

Seriously, though..I wanted to give my opinion on this.

I think there is someone on this jury that is seriously co-dependent.
They feel like it's their responsibility to save the kids heartache and they aren't able to rationalize that this case is even a case because the defendant CHOSE TO SMASH HER HUSBAND (a.k.a - the only father her children have known)'S HEAD IN WITH A HAMMER.
It's not up to this Jury to decide what's best for the kids. It's their Job to decide if this defendant is guilty of murder and if she deserves the death penalty. period.
The responsibility of the children's feelings/well being falls upon the parents and/or legal guardian. Unfortunately, they don't have a father because their remaining living parent decided they didn't need a father because she wanted the insurance money his death would grant her. They are living with the defendant's own mother, who has been accused of severe abuse by the defendant. But she wants this abusive beast to care for her precious children.:notgood:
She chose money over her children's well-being, she chose money over her children's emotional stability, she chose money over her own wretched freedom.
She's the one who murdered her husband, she's the one who has been found guilty and she's the one who must suffer the consequences of her own actions.
The children are collateral damage, as they always are when they have a crap parent who puts their own wants/desires ahead of their children's well being.
As trial watchers, we've seen that time and time again. Unfortunately, that's life, and we can't save everyone from heartache. It happens, and sometimes it's those very burdens that give us the character and mental fortitude to become the people we were born to be.
These children's lot in life is to be the daughter of a psychopathic murderess who murdered their father, and it's their life to live. None of us can save them from that, and certainly not these jury members.
Whoever is the co-dependent one on this jury needs to suck it up, feel those uncomfortable feelings and cast their vote for death and be done with it already. Murder is not something that gives us all good feelings, it's horrible. This jury has a horrible job to do, and they need to just get over it, make a decision and be done with it.
I'm personally so tired of this trial, I don't care if she gets life or dp, i just want it to end. it's gone on long enough.

All of the above is just my :twocents:

eugh...maybe I should take a few more days away from trials. I'm not in a positive place apparently. :facepalm:

thanks for reading my ramblings.

Also, I'm shocked to learn of the Trial Diva's Split. I also find it odd and abrupt. Something hit the fan and it certainly wasn't a stiletto. :eek:
 
  • #278
Was it AZ?

Chelly, I just remembered it was the Drew Peterson jury that asked for that definition of "unanimous" so Arizona is off the hook for that. :floorlaugh:
 
  • #279
Someone should place the blood soaked claw hammer on the jurors lunch room table.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
  • #280
Someone should place the blood soaked claw hammer on the jurors lunch room table.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Yep. Although even the victim's autopsy photos did not prevent the foreman of the other AZ trial from saying that the victim pretty much had it coming. :banghead:

If this case doesn't warrant the death penalty then might as well get rid of the death penalty all together.

If you jurors say you CAN do something then DO it! :banghead:
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
1,143
Total visitors
1,237

Forum statistics

Threads
636,540
Messages
18,698,971
Members
243,743
Latest member
Ulzz
Back
Top