AZ - Lori Vallow Daybell charged w/ conspiring to kill ex-husband Charles Vallow and another relative, Brandon Boudreaux, Chandler, Maricopa County #4

[Megnut]

I have a question: IF that juror or another confirms that he (and possibly more of the jurors) knew what they were not supposed to know or consider when deliberating (that TR and JJ and Tammy are dead and LVD was convicted for their murders) and a mistrial were to be declared, then what?

After the verdict, LVD stipulated to the aggravating factors, which to me seems like a confession. It was stated without a jury present, but is part of the record.

Given that, how could she be tried again?

I struggle with this:

Defendants have the right to go before s jury of their peers.

Peers.

Not strangers, coworkers, foreigners but peers.

But so often, trials are moved away from peers.

Tried then by strangers.

Not peers, but people who don't know the defendants.

Then add in exceptions for what can and can't be known.

Peers know you. Your name, your history.

But here, we scrub that. Too prejudicial

So it becomes a trial by jury whereby the jury is the opposite of your peers. Sure, it's all in furtherance of the greater right -- freedom -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- something we don't really strip away. And now we have to ensure that potential jurors aren't infected by social media saturation, gaining bias and facts which might never see the courtroom.

Balance, I guess.

I get it but thst doesn't mean I like it.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

That is why I wish jurors had to sign a confidentiality agreement. Jurors should not discuss anything about deliberations.

I disagree though speaking soon after you're released by the judge in these high-profile cases when emotions are running amok can be dicey.
An NDA would violate one's freedom of speech.
Don't most NDAs give the signer something of value, like money?
Under certain conditions a judge may prohibit jurors from speaking about certain issues from a trial, classified info comes to mind.
In Grand Juries they are the jurors that are not allowed to talk to anyone outside the court about the cases that come before them whether they indict someone or not.

 

[mickey2942]

I used to work a job that would pay you for jury duty. You turned in the check you received for Jury Duty, and got your regular pay check.

Now, the job I have, gives you 4 hours of leave for Jury Duty. That is it. So, there is absolutely no way I could serve on a Jury.

 

[Diddian]

I struggle with this:

Defendants have the right to go before s jury of their peers.

Peers.

Not strangers, coworkers, foreigners but peers.

But so often, trials are moved away from peers.

Tried then by strangers.

Not peers, but people who don't know the defendants.

Then add in exceptions for what can and can't be known.

Peers know you. Your name, your history.

But here, we scrub that. Too prejudicial

So it becomes a trial by jury whereby the jury is the opposite of your peers. Sure, it's all in furtherance of the greater right -- freedom -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- something we don't really strip away. And now we have to ensure that potential jurors aren't infected by social media saturation, gaining bias and facts which might never see the courtroom.

Balance, I guess.

I get it but thst doesn't mean I like it.

JMO

The concept of “peers” comes out of the Magna Carta - nobles will be judged by other nobles and not the King. Peers are fellow citizens and it is the law that is supreme, not the King.

That said, take social media saturation, huge public interest, and jurors freely mingling among the public during breaks and combine it with jurors writing books to profit from their experience (which they have every right to do), and you have a potential temptation for some individual jurors to be open to or even to explore ways to undermine the law - to learn more than the court and rules of evidence would have them know.

And in a case like this one, where there seemed huge unexplained holes - “why no testimony from Tylee, Alex, and the earliest in-charge detective?” - curiosity borne out of a strong desire not to contribute toward an injustice could easily stoke that temptation.

It sometimes takes extreme discipline and respect for the law and the reasoning behind it for individual jurors to resist becoming laws in and of themselves.

 

[Jolynna]

Jurors speak out about their first hour of deliberations. --FOX 10 Phoenix

 

[Cindizzi]

Lol

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915087869502447980

 

[Izzylizzy]

Peter just posted.
Jurors
I haven't listened yet so I don't know if he addresses the comment from the man about driving home and LVD's "3 lifes"

 

[Love Never Fails]

Jurors speak out about their first hour of deliberations. --FOX 10 Phoenix

This is about coffee?

 

[Diddian]

Peter just posted.
Jurors
I haven't listened yet so I don't know if he addresses the comment from the man about driving home and LVD's "3 lifes"

Beginning about 2:09 when the guy with the mustache asked "were any of you guys aware that this woman had already been convicted of 3 homocides...", the white-haired juror (wish we knew his name so I could stop calling him that) shook his head and stated, "No," put his hand on his chest and went on to say, "I did not."

I really think that the white-haired juror misspoke in his earlier response about "when I was driving last night." Probably got flustered upon learning about the full scope of these crimes.

Still, in that earlier response he had also mentioned that he "felt sorry for her" about the deaths of her children and attributed it to there being something wrong in her head.

I think the book of life has more pages than that. Sometimes people just choose evil. Even mothers against their own children.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915076539034800626

 

[Izzylizzy]

Beginning about 2:09 when the guy with the mustache asked "were any of you guys aware that this woman had already been convicted of 3 homocides...", the white-haired juror (wish we knew his name so I could stop calling him that) shook his head and stated, "No," put his hand on his chest and went on to say, "I did not."

I really think that the white-haired juror misspoke in his earlier response about "when I was driving last night." Probably got flustered upon learning about the full scope of these crimes.

Still, in that earlier response he had also mentioned that he "felt sorry for her" about the deaths of her children and attributed it to there being something wrong in her head.

I think the book of life has more pages than that. Sometimes people just choose evil. Even mothers against their own children.

His name is Karl.

IIRC it was after this interview when Karl was walking to the shuttle that he comments about the 3 life's.

Peter @ LYK complimented him quite a few times for his responses.
Footage of his comments about the 3 life's wasn't shown.
I got the opposite impression of him than Peter did, he came off to me as quite clueless as to the evidence shown by the state during the trial leading up to the closing and I think it was the 10 other jurors who focused on the couple of texts they mentioned that doomed LVD and got him from his previous not-guilty to guilty.

imo

 

[musicaljoke]

I struggle with this:

Defendants have the right to go before s jury of their peers.

Peers.

Not strangers, coworkers, foreigners but peers.

But so often, trials are moved away from peers.

Tried then by strangers.

Not peers, but people who don't know the defendants.

Then add in exceptions for what can and can't be known.

Peers know you. Your name, your history.

But here, we scrub that. Too prejudicial

So it becomes a trial by jury whereby the jury is the opposite of your peers. Sure, it's all in furtherance of the greater right -- freedom -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- something we don't really strip away. And now we have to ensure that potential jurors aren't infected by social media saturation, gaining bias and facts which might never see the courtroom.

Balance, I guess.

I get it but thst doesn't mean I like it.

JMO

Peers in the sense of a "jury of one's peers", are not necessarily people who know you. In this case, "peers" are ordinary citizens in society, rather than a jury of government officials.

Otherwise, we would end up with women being judged by women only, or Asians judged by Asians only, or factory workers judged by factory workers, for examples.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I'm back to thinking "Karl"knew about her 3 life sentences.

Asked what he thought of LVD representing herself and "anything that went through the juries heads with that"?

If he didn't know during the trial and/or during deliberations it makes absolutely no sense for him to have answered LVD had "nothing to lose, guilty or not guilty".

She had everything to lose if found guilty and freedom if found not-guilty.
imo

@1:00

 

[Izzylizzy]

Last night Tricia posted this video of Karl saying " driving home yesterday" cont: at video.

IMO:
Clear as a bell.
@6:02:00

 

[Jolynna]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915137626845438058

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915140364668965354

 

[Twick]

I struggle with this:

Defendants have the right to go before s jury of their peers.

Peers.

Not strangers, coworkers, foreigners but peers.

But so often, trials are moved away from peers.

Tried then by strangers.

Not peers, but people who don't know the defendants.

Then add in exceptions for what can and can't be known.

Peers know you. Your name, your history.

But here, we scrub that. Too prejudicial

So it becomes a trial by jury whereby the jury is the opposite of your peers. Sure, it's all in furtherance of the greater right -- freedom -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- something we don't really strip away. And now we have to ensure that potential jurors aren't infected by social media saturation, gaining bias and facts which might never see the courtroom.

Balance, I guess.

I get it but thst doesn't mean I like it.

JMO

Nom “peers” never meant “people who know you.” It meant people of your own standing. People *like* you. But not people who had prejudged you but a lifetime of acquaintance. That’s guaranteed to free the guilty and convict the innocent.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915189216793026745

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915189216793026745

View attachment 581246View attachment 581247

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

These cases must be the first ever to have pleadings stating that the motive involves zombies.

 

[MTW2011]

I’m a bit worried/disappointed to see one of the jurors mention that they knew about her two life sentences BEFORE they reached a verdict. They were interviewed on FOX 10 and shared how they felt giving her a “3rd” life sentence, as they already knew she had two others.

I worry this may be scrutinized heavily by appellate attorneys, should she choose to appeal. It certainly could open a door for questions on what jurors knew about her prior convictions and when they knew that. I saw other jurors mention how they used her demeanor in court as part of their deliberations - another thing that is not meant to be used in deciding guilt. Hopefully nothing will come of it, but I guess time will tell.

I wish courts did a better job of advising jurors that they are free to talk but if they choose to do so, things they say may be scrutinized and/or questioned on a future appeal. I’m sure many jurors have no idea that is even a possibility when they’re speaking with media and that doesn’t seem fair to me. JMOO.