MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #5

[seattlechiquita]

I can't even. After years here, I have come to think that juries are lazy. They can't be bothered to take a deep look at the evidence. If they don't have a time stamped certified by God video with both the homicide on tape AND a confession, they just can't give it a second thought. The CSI effect.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I should add that sometimes a defense attorney will come up with hypothetical scenarios and tell the jury about them. However, an attorney's statements are not evidence.

Jose Baez told a whopper in the Casey Antony trial. That jury also fell for it.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

I can't even. After years here, I have come to think that juries are lazy. They can't be bothered to take a deep look at the evidence. If they don't have a time stamped certified by God video with both the homicide on tape AND a confession, they just can't give it a second thought. The CSI effect.

Exactly.

DNA is a double edged sword.

We should LOVE it for being able to guarantee a conviction.

We should HATE it for it now being a requirement for a guilty verdict in the 21st century, discounting the brains and common sense of a jury.

Seriously, what's going to happen if we require DNA for every single conviction?

 

[seattlechiquita]

I should add that sometimes a defense attorney will come up with hypothetical scenarios and tell the jury about them. However, an attorney's statements are not evidence.

Jose Baez told a whopper in the Casey Antony trial. That jury also fell for it.

JMO

that's exactly the first trial that came to mind. 12 idiots not smart enough to put 1 + 1 together. the infamous Pinelas 12.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Exactly.

DNA is a double edged sword.

We should LOVE it for being able to guarantee a conviction.

We should HATE it for it now being a requirement for a guilty verdict in the 21st century, discounting the brains and common sense of a jury.

Seriously, what's going to happen if we require DNA for every single conviction?

And then think about this. We CAN wrongfully convict people based on that same DNA evidence. A case is made by more than physical or direct evidence. Much more.

 

[Gardenista]

This statement by a juror in this case tells me he didn't have a clue in what his job as a juror was.



For one thing most criminal case's are base solely on circumstantial evidence and juries across America have no problem reaching a verdict from that evidence.

Secondly, saying that were "what if's" that caused a deadlock tells me he didn't understand his job as juror. He's supposed to base his decision on the evidence presented in court and not hypothetical scenarios that can never be proven. JMO

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/24/juror-explains-mistrial-in-sidney-moorer-kidnapping-case/

And I think he was the foreman. Here is another article with a similar quote that gives his name and states he was the foreman:

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_0f1386d6-3a4f-11e6-a96a-cffb901d4c93.html

 

[TTF14]

And then think about this. We CAN wrongfully convict people based on that same DNA evidence. A case is made by more than physical or direct evidence. Much more.

i hope there are some Ph.D. students out there doing research and dissertations on this subject. There needs to be some new research about this in this new age.

 

[Knox]

[/B]

BBM - yes, at least one juror did just that. I believe it was the foreman (was rumored to be, anyway) that said, quoting to WBTW:

“If we were not doing a trial on circumstantial evidence, it would have been a much more way for us to sink our teeth into and come up with a proper verdict,” the juror explained. “But because of the fact there were so many what-ifs, ‘what if this happened,’ ‘what if that happened,’ and things of that nature, we were hopelessly deadlocked.”

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/24/juror-explains-mistrial-in-sidney-moorer-kidnapping-case/


Also, 2 jurors spoke to WMBF and said essentially that the evidence was right in front of them.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/Clip/12550126/jurors-speak-about-split-on-verdict

BBM-We all watched and listened to the judge give the jury their "instructions". We also watched and listened to him answer their questions, after deliberations had begun and they needed clarification.

IMO, the responsibility for the Jury "confusion" lies with the judge. I'm still shaking my head over his conduct in that courtroom, seriously!!

 

[LBDunes]

The judge in this case gave instructions, which included the caution that if there was reasonable doubt of any of the evidence against SM, then that meant the vote must be NG. I think we can tell ourselves that we have the ability to crawl inside a juror's mind and know that he or she is confused by too much TV, or all the 'what if's' traps, but we really don't know the reasoning of the juror, any more than we know Heather's frame of mind or SM's thoughts on blunt rolling.

Two jurors had reasonable doubt and couldn't get past it. Because we want him convicted doesn't make them stupid, poor examiners of evidence, or CSI watchers. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

BBM - all valid points you made. I agree to disagree somewhat.

Example, the quote below is from one of the jurors on why they couldn't come to a proper verdict. I didn't crawl into his mind, but I have made a determination of his mindset. I have a reasonable suspicion that he may have somewhat of a CSI mindset or at the very least he doesn't seem to equate circumstantial evidence with direct evidence.

“If we were not doing a trial on circumstantial evidence, it would have been a much more way for us to sink our teeth into and come up with a proper verdict,” the juror explained. “But because of the fact there were so many what-ifs, ‘what if this happened,’ ‘what if that happened,’ and things of that nature, we were hopelessly deadlocked.”

I have no thoughts on SM's blunt rolling, other than he probably ratted out that kid.

I don't think it is unfair to say this particular judge could have given better jury instructions.

It is also not unfair for any of us to feel the judge should not have let the defense attorney's friend on the jury.

 

[Knox]

Been busy, sorry if this has been asked a zillion times. Is the State going to retry, and if so, have they announced a time frame?

 

[bestill]

This statement by a juror in this case tells me he didn't have a clue in what his job as a juror was.



For one thing most criminal case's are base solely on circumstantial evidence and juries across America have no problem reaching a verdict from that evidence.

Secondly, saying that were "what if's" that caused a deadlock tells me he didn't understand his job as juror. He's supposed to base his decision on the evidence presented in court and not hypothetical scenarios that can never be proven. JMO

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/24/juror-explains-mistrial-in-sidney-moorer-kidnapping-case/

Yes, exactly!!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM-We all watched and listened to the judge give the jury their "instructions". We also watched and listened to him answer their questions, after deliberations had begun and they needed clarification.

IMO, the responsibility for the Jury "confusion" lies with the judge. I'm still shaking my head over his conduct in that courtroom, seriously!!

I didn't watch this trial. I've seen posters here mention that the judge did a poor job in his instructions before the jury was sent to deliberate.

It would be nice if the specific problems with the instructions be posted so people who didn't watch the trial would have an understanding about that topic.

 

[LBDunes]

Been busy, sorry if this has been asked a zillion times. Is the State going to retry, and if so, have they announced a time frame?

They have not announced a date to retry or a decision to retry as far as I have seen. My guess is they will retry it.

 

[Carolina Girl]

I have one last rant about this case. Hopefully I can let it go until the next trial. The Judge should have never been on this case, and the Juror that was a friend of Truslow should have never been allowed to be seated on the Jury to help hang it. Also, there was evidence we knew about not brought out or highlighted. Are they saving it for TM? Bad idea to try them separately, but there again, look at the Judge! 10-2 was an amazing tally considering the way the Judge treated NL.I hope and pray they do get a new venue and The Judge can not retry this case. I have never seen such a travesty of justice in my long life. It was a complete embarrassment to the State of SC!

 

[bestill]

I have one last rant about this case. Hopefully I can let it go until the next trial. The Judge should have never been on this case, and the Juror that was a friend of Truslow should have never been allowed to be seated on the Jury to help hang it. Also, there was evidence we knew about not brought out or highlighted. Are they saving it for TM? Bad idea to try them separately, but there again, look at the Judge! 10-2 was an amazing tally considering the way the Judge treated NL.I hope and pray they do get a new venue and The Judge can not retry this case. I have never seen such a travesty of justice in my long life. It was a complete embarrassment to the State of SC!

Judge failed Heather and her family. He was hell bent on rushing this case all week, there was NO reason to seat a juror with any connections to either side. I think he was caught because of prejudice - he is personal friends with the defendant's father - another travesty. Heather deserves so much more.

 

[TTF14]

Been busy, sorry if this has been asked a zillion times. Is the State going to retry, and if so, have they announced a time frame?

We don't know. We don't know. But we hope so. There's only a date for the contempt/violation of gag order charge so far.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

With a 10-2 guilty to not guilty outcome it would be a decent gamble for the state to try again. In my jurisdiction retrying again would be a no brainer. There was a big murder case in my area that in the first round got 8 G & 4 NG and ended in mistrial. The state tried the defendant again and (thank goodness) he was found guilty in the 2nd trial.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

With a 10-2 guilty to not guilty outcome it would be a decent gamble for the state to try again. In my jurisdiction retrying again would be a no brainer. There was a big murder case in my area that in the first round got 8 G & 4 NG and ended in mistrial. The state tried the defendant again and (thank goodness) he was found guilty in the 2nd trial.

I think that the State has a good chance in winning in a retrial if you consider that one juror out of twelve admitted in public that he didn't know what he was doing.

A little more work during jury selection may remedy that problem. I hope.

 

[scaredtopost]

IMO, Bri's testimony was not the bombshell we all assumed or hoped it would be. I wonder why KT was hell bent on getting it thrown out. Was SM worried HE had divulged more to her? I think so. I think she told him she'd meet him but was too ashamed to admit that to BW. I also keep going back to the change of venue. It was one of the first things KT brough up in his interview. It'd be a terrible strain on the family to travel, but I'd like to think he'd be found guilty in any county. JMO, MOO, etc.

 

[jillycat]

BBM - all valid points you made. I agree to disagree somewhat.

Example, the quote below is from one of the jurors on why they couldn't come to a proper verdict. I didn't crawl into his mind, but I have made a determination of his mindset. I have a reasonable suspicion that he may have somewhat of a CSI mindset or at the very least he doesn't seem to equate circumstantial evidence with direct evidence.

“If we were not doing a trial on circumstantial evidence, it would have been a much more way for us to sink our teeth into and come up with a proper verdict,” the juror explained. “But because of the fact there were so many what-ifs, ‘what if this happened,’ ‘what if that happened,’ and things of that nature, we were hopelessly deadlocked.”

I have no thoughts on SM's blunt rolling, other than he probably ratted out that kid.

I don't think it is unfair to say this particular judge could have given better jury instructions.

It is also not unfair for any of us to feel the judge should not have let the defense attorney's friend on the jury.

I think we're going in a bit of a circle. I've said previously that I don't think KT's friend should have been seated, primarily because even the appearance of a conflict is potentially a problem. I also said I don't believe that jurors should get to decide whether or not they can be impartial.

But did KT's friend vote NG? I keep seeing that he did and he was also the foreman. Is that the case? If he voted Guilty, then the mistrial can't be blamed on his relationship with KT.

As for the instructions, I honestly found them coherent and clear, but I said before that doesn't mean everyone else did.

My point re: jury thought processes, victim mind-reading and blunt rolling, that is, assessment from afar of other people's frame of mind and shopping behavior, is that it's being cited alongside an insistence on facts. I observe at times that some are equating what is said at trial or advanced by the state as indisputable "fact".

I'm still frankly having a hard time with the reasoning that it's far-fetched to consider Longbeard's as relevant and potentially where more happened than we know because it's a 'what if', but it's somehow plausible that SM was going to get Heather to take a pregnancy test and then kill her no matter what the results.

I saw the juror's remarks the day he made them. It would be interesting to have more than a media blip of a discussion with that juror and the other one, to find out more about their reasoning. Maybe it's poor reasoning, maybe it's not. It's kinda like KT's friend being the foreman, but now this other guy is?

I want to see Heather have whatever justice she can receive, having been murdered and denied a dignified laying to rest. But I don't agree that any reasonable doubt in this case automatically equals juror stupidity or failure of the court.

FWIW, I appreciate the time you take to read posts and to thoughtfully respond.