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

[Eileen730]

people are people...sure they did. Use common sense

but not all ppl are liars!
they lied every day saying yes to the judge when he asked if they followed is admonitions!

 

[Eileen730]

Id love to know who was watching this group?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Everyone does realize it was the Defense Team that originally brought up the idea the jury had been talking, and asked for a mistrial at that time and were denied.

Yes. They were bringing everything up as a cause for mistrial. Apparently, they weren't expecting a not guilty verdict either.

 

[Eileen730]

Movie deals? Are they delusional? A movie company does not have to pay the jury to make a movie about the trial/verdict. They don't own the rights to it. Plus, movies tend to be exaggerated so it doesn't really matter what exactly went on in that room; they'll write whatever makes it the most "Hollywood".

If they want a book deal, they better hurry up and sign that contract, because the market isn't big enough for 12 books by 12 jurors who are all going to be saying the same thing.

I think the most brilliant thing a movie company could do would be to make a movie and have KC Anthony found guilty...

that should put a damper on things!

 

[Paladine]

Everyone does realize it was the Defense Team that originally brought up the idea the jury had been talking, and asked for a mistrial at that time and were denied.

The defense asked for mistrial more than a few times, no? Might simply be standard operating procedure for Baez...

 

[Eileen730]

Yes. They were bringing everything up as a cause for mistrial. Apparently, they weren't expecting a not guilty verdict either.

CM said he was going to walk out with KC a free woman!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

CM said he was going to walk out with KC a free woman!

Bluster. CM is 50% bluster and I'll get a TO if I tell you what I believe comprises the other 50%. But if he had been certain of Casey's not guilty verdict, they wouldn't have put forth so many motions for mistrial.

 

[Sjoseph316]

I've been a juror on a murder trial and it was all circumstantial evidence. We questioned not only the Juror instructions and how to apply them to each individual piece of evidence, but also had many questions about "reasonable doubt". I know that I and several other jurors even asked questions of the Judge during the proceedings, we were allowed to do so and our questions were given to him by note when we had a break. We found the defendant guilty and then found out that this was his second trial, the first had resulted in a hung jury. I don't understand how this jury could so easily understand and apply the juror instructions without question. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and it appears that they dismissed all of it without question.

In this day and age of scientific evidence such as DNA, circumstantial evidence pretty much means nothing anymore. Everyone wants to say how great our justice system is, and maybe it was before all this scientific garbage came into play, but the fact is that since the display of evidence has changed so much then our justice system MUST change to keep up with it. It is not necessary to have 100% scientific evidence to get a conviction and people, especially jurors MUST UNDERSTAND THIS

 

[Chablis]

but not all ppl are liars!
they lied every day saying yes to the judge when he asked if they followed is admonitions!

Pretending that its just a fact the jury talked about the trial and lied to the Judge is not responsible.

 

[askfornina]

i predict the rest of this jury will not talk because of the absolutely abhorrent hate being directed toward them, and directed toward ANY and ALL of their valid reasoning. why talk when it falls on deaf ears? JMO.

 

[suzihawk]

i predict the rest of this jury will not talk because of the absolutely abhorrent hate being directed toward them, and directed toward ANY and ALL of their valid reasoning. why talk when it falls on deaf ears? JMO.

GOOD! I hope you're right. I've heard enough and I have no interest in hearing what the rest of them have to say. If the few that have spoken (and the reactions to it) assure that the others don't get a paycheck for thier 'work' that's more than okay with me. Valid reasoning doesn't fall on deaf ears - nonsense does. As always, my opinion.

 

[JBean]

In this day and age of scientific evidence such as DNA, circumstantial evidence pretty much means nothing anymore. Everyone wants to say how great our justice system is, and maybe it was before all this scientific garbage came into play, but the fact is that since the display of evidence has changed so much then our justice system MUST change to keep up with it. It is not necessary to have 100% scientific evidence to get a conviction and people, especially jurors MUST UNDERSTAND THIS

DNA and scientific evidence IS circumstantial evidence.

 

[Chablis]

I cant believe some news people are asking for them to be identified, to help others understand? What? Maybe the media should be apologizing for exploiting a case and leading the Prosecution to think they had such a slam dunk case and could win on public support. They seriously used air samples from a car that had been cleaned and aired out by the Anthonys to try to convict someone of murder. That is a travesty, if anyone should be explaining anything, it should be the prosecution!

 

[JBean]

The defense asked for mistrial more than a few times, no? Might simply be standard operating procedure for Baez...

Hi Paladine. asking for a mistrial is SOP in general.

 

[goldenlover]

Everyone does realize it was the Defense Team that originally brought up the idea the jury had been talking, and asked for a mistrial at that time and were denied.

I remember that.

 

[goldenlover]

CM said he was going to walk out with KC a free woman!

Looks like he knew the evidence was lacking.

 

[Thinker Belle]

Another troubling fact is that the jurors left their notebooks when they went into deliberations. This also leads me to believe they had discussed the case beforehand. If they had not, wouldn't they wish to reference their notes as talking pints during their deliberations?

 

[cuppy199]

Looks like he knew the evidence was lacking.

If they were so sure it was lacking they wouldn't of tried so hard to keep it out. This verdict could of just as easy went the other way. If it were a male on trial I have no doubt it would of.

 

[LancelotLink]

If they were so sure it was lacking they wouldn't of tried so hard to keep it out. This verdict could of just as easy went the other way. If it were a male on trial I have no doubt it would of.

Excellent point!!

ython:

 

[kantoo]

Another troubling fact is that the jurors left their notebooks when they went into deliberations. This also leads me to believe they had discussed the case beforehand. If they had not, wouldn't they wish to reference their notes as talking pints during their deliberations?

ah, logic. so missing with the jurors in this trial. no one cared. how do i vote to get out of here the fastest? so sad.