Did Jurors Talk About Case during Trial Against Judge's Orders?

[SarahEcho]

If their intial vote showed they all felt "not guilty" was proven, are they expected to stay in there for days and try to convince each other of guilt?

Let's hope that day never comes, at least not here.

 

[Mamamia1]

I would suggest that this was the first vacation most of these people have ever had thanks to the taxpayers. Unemployed? Crappy job? Is your retirement plan to win the lotto?Well, today you win an all expense paid vay-cay concluding with a winning Golden Ticket. Considering the make up of the jury we will see them on How Winning the Casey Anthony Golden Ticket Ruined My Life--coming in the next few years to Reality TV, This Jury's Source For "News".

 

[cuppy199]

Is anyone aware that the jurors were free to speak when released from duty? They were all bunking at the same hotel as well as sharing transportation and probably had more than a few minutes to say goodbye, decompress and finally feel relief to share some thoughts with each other.

Oh wait, that doesn't fit the ignorant/biased/greedy/lazy jurors theories.

Not directed at you personally, ExpectingUnicorns.

Jurors are not allowed to talk about the case. There is a reason the courts stress this rule everytime the juror leaves the court room.

 

[askfornina]

if the verdict was guilty, and it was proven that the jurors talked before deliberations, would anyone care? i am willing to bet anything they would not.

i understand everyone is upset and looking to blame someone, but who you all should really be blaming is Linda Drane Burdick, Frank George and Jeff Ashton for being too confident in their evidence and seeking the ultimate sanction with not enough evidence.

 

[azwriter]

He could not possibly know what they found compelling to find her not guilty unless it was discussed. He is speaking for the jury as a whole. I think if he were speaking just for himself he would have said my personal belief from the evidence I saw....... He does not even come close to saying that. He is speaking in terms of the jury as a whole's belief was..... Big difference. jmo

Great post.

And what about the phrase opening remarks like: "I think..." or "I believe.."
"It's my opinion..."

No. In his account he is speaking as if he was part of a discussion. You bet they were talking about the court session throughout.

I think this was a jury seated with a chip on its collective shoulders. They wanted out of there and to get back at the prosecution for yanking them from their homes and moved to another county. I truly believe that.

jmo

 

[*Hayley*]

I believe JP moved the trial along way too fast, allowed jurors on the case he shouldn't have like the ones that were in a hurry and had trips planned in early July. The State also let felons on the jury and people that never graduated high school. Those types are usually not very smart. The let people that lived on the wrong side of the law on. You put all these types together. The 2 women that don't judge, the stupid ones that didn't complete school, young men that want to flirt with KC, Felons that already have a bad feeling towards law. They just picked the wrong jury. And then JP bent over backwards to hurry this case along.

I think the prosecution should have put on alot more than they did. They needed to answer the dysfunction about the family and not ignore it like they did. It is so obvious and the jury picked up on it and used it as an excuse to excuse her.

The defense dumbed down to these unintelligent jurors. They used things that those types can understand. They dont' understand the forensics and these new hi falutin tests that were done or decomposed body air in a can that they never got to smell. They understand family dynamics and something better to tie her to Caylee's body.

I take offense to your comment here, I didn't graduate high school. However I am very educated and intelligent even with out my diploma. To lump non high school grads with convicted felons is highly offensive and ignorant to put it nicely.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent using smoke signals

 

[mombomb]

Does anyone remember the conversation in court after the jurors were first sent back to deliberate on the afternoon of the 4th regarding their notebooks? Some of them took them with them and some of them didn't. JB pointed out that they appeared to be confused about what to do with them. Could it be that the ones that were left in the courtroom were left there by the jurors who felt they didn't need them because their minds were already made up - before they even started to deliberate? MOO

 

[1tasha]

If their intial vote showed they all felt "not guilty" was proven, are they expected to stay in there for days and try to convince each other of guilt?

They have a duty to reevaluate the evidence, that's for sure. mo

The juror stated that they also felt she was "not innocent." No, not days to convince each other of guilt. I see your point. But they had no questions on anything? Maybe it would have saved them some nausea and a lifetime of second guessing if they reviewed a piece of evidence just to be sure. As biased as I may be, I guarentee I'd want to do it.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Originally, I thought, no, they'd never do that knowing how important it was for them to follow the law.

Even when the alternate juror came forward and kept saying "we", I thought maybe he meant "we" because they discussed it on the bus going home yesterday.

After sleeping on it, after hearing him again today, and after hearing what Juror # 3 had to say, I no longer believe they didn't talk about it during the trial. Maybe not all together where it was apparent, but in little groups of 2 or 3 when they were having dinner, on one of their outings, etc. I just don't understand how the jurors could come to their conclusion in so short a time without going over the evidence, having testimonies read back to them, nothing!

Did they not bother to look when the baby's skull was being shown?

There was also the incident when they sent a note to Judge Perry saying they didn't see the evidence (heart sticker) and wanted to see it. At first I thought it was maybe someone saying to the deputy, "We didn't see that evidence. Can we write a note asking to?" and the other jurors said, yes, we want to see it too. Now I don't believe that scenario for a second, I truly believe they chatted about it amongst themselves before sending the note.

I now believe they conferred with each other long before they should have, especially after Juror # 3 said they cried over their decision. When? They weren't in the jury room long enough to grab a tissue!

 

[Lovejac]

Originally, I thought, no, they'd never do that knowing how important it was for them to follow the law.

Even when the alternate juror came forward and kept saying "we", I thought maybe he meant "we" because they discussed it on the bus going home yesterday.

After sleeping on it, after hearing him again today, and after hearing what Juror # 3 had to say, I no longer believe they didn't talk about it during the trial. Maybe not all together where it was apparent, but in little groups of 2 or 3 when they were having dinner, on one of their outings, etc. I just don't understand how the jurors could come to their conclusion in so short a time without going over the evidence, having testimonies read back to them, nothing!

Did they not bother to look when the baby's skull was being shown?

I now believe they conferred with each other long before they should have, especially after Juror # 3 said they cried over their decision. When? They weren't in the jury room long enough to grab a tissue!

When did Juror 3 come forward with info?? I missed it.

 

[Americka]

When did Juror 3 come forward with info?? I missed it.

Casey Juror: 'I Did Not Say She Was Innocent'

Juror No. 3 Speaks About Verdict

Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, says the jurors were "sick to their stomachs" after voting to not convict Anthony in connection with the death of her daughter.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28465689/detail.html#ixzz1RMnN6rAW
​

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28465689/detail.html#ixzz1RMnBYBjL

 

[cluciano63]

The juror stated that they also felt she was "not innocent." No, not days to convince each other of guilt. I see your point. But they had no questions on anything? Maybe it would have saved them some nausea and a lifetime of second guessing if they reviewed a piece of evidence just to be sure. As biased as I may be, I guarentee I'd want to do it.

Maybe they did review evidence, we don't know, they had it all there, except the cans and the tapes and transcripts. They had over 300 items.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

When did Juror 3 come forward with info?? I missed it.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Maybe they did review evidence, we don't know, they had it all there, except the cans and the tapes and transcripts. They had over 300 items.

Over 300 items and it took them how long? They knew by the end of deliberation on Monday night they were going to hand down the verdict on Tuesday - they arrived in court all dressed up!

They went through all that evidence, the videos, the witness testimonies in that short a time? I don't think so. To get the videos and testimonies they would have had to ask the court for them. They didn't. When they left the jury box on Monday, some of them didn't bother to bring their notes with them!

They heard Baez's outrageous opening statement and they made up their minds. No deliberations needed.

Not one juror stood up for Caylee. Not one.

 

[cluciano63]

Over 300 items and it took them how long? They knew by the end of deliberation on Monday night they were going to hand down the verdict on Tuesday - they arrived in court all dressed up!

They went through all that evidence, the videos, the witness testimonies in that short a time? I don't think so. To get the videos and testimonies they would have had to ask the court for them. They didn't. When they left the jury box on Monday, some of them didn't bother to bring their notes with them!

Not one juror stood up for Caylee. Not one.

I don't know what to say, but if they took a straw vote and it was 12-0 not guilty or not proven, I don't know what everyone expected them to do at that point. They could have come out with a verdict in thirty minutes, but they stayed in for 10 hours or so. If they all agreed right away that the case was not proven as to that Casey did something criminal to Caylee, were they supposed to try to find something to charge her with? That isn't how it is supposed to work either.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

I don't know what to say, but if they took a straw vote and it was 12-0 not guilty or not proven, I don't know what everyone expected them to do at that point. They could have come out with a verdict in thirty minutes, but they stayed in for 10 hours or so. If they all agreed right away that the case was not proven as to that Casey did something criminal to Caylee, were they supposed to try to find something to charge her with? That isn't how it is supposed to work either.

If they knew in 30 minutes, why stay for ten hours?

They knew at 6pm on Monday. Why go through the charade on Tuesday?

 

[Hisimage]

When the juror says a statement like "I didn't see a stain in the trunk" I gotta wonder; so you think everyone was in on this? You really believe that the police, SA and the qualified experts lied? Well then, What makes Casey such a bad person that they would want her framed for murder? hmmm sorry guys, it might take another day to go over this stuff.

 

[PhillygirlToo]

My husband was on a sequestered jury and he says its BS that the jurors don't talk about it amongst themselves.

 

[deelytful1]

The alternate juror that called into a tv show today kept using terms like 'we' 'they' 'them' 'our' while discussing why the jury voted this way. This alternate had not seen the regular jurors since their vote was revealed when he said these things. To my knowledge the alternates were separated today and the main jurors went back to hotel on the bus w/o alternates.

From all he said (he made statements like 'from the beginning of the trial we felt....

Is there any way to let the judge know this and have the jurors questioned whether they were talking during the trial or not? Could he call a mistrial? I don't like the sounds of what this jury was saying and doing. Very unintelligent jury. I don't think they looked at the State's evidence at all.

OMG.. so true!
I know a lawyer would rip this apart saying he was speaking for himself, but I so wish there was some way to research this!
The privacy availed to the jurors out of respect and duty to this country may have well been the very thing that allowed them to circumvent the law!!

 

[Jack]

I just watched an alternate juror on television indicate 'they all thought there was some horrific accident'. This guy wasn't involved in the deliberations. Were they all able to read each other's minds?