Professional Jurors

[goldenlover]

Respectfully, yes I would say that you are not qualified based on your statement that I bolded above, "You cannot base a verdict on that, especially when a persons life is at stake ( even life without parole, even 30 years in prison, etc.)"

Punishment is NOT supposed to even be a consideration when determining guilt. The possible sentences should have no weight or influence when deciding guilty or not guilty.

Also, circumstantial evidence is not speculation.

Have you seen many of the top law professors speaking out recently in the media. The majority of them have said that the jury made the right decision, they evidence was not there. For most of the states scientific evidence, there was another expert that disputed it. There was hardly any circumstantial evidence that was proven to be a fact. The only thing they had was the 31 days of lies.

 

[JBean]

I am always eliminated during voir dire. I just got my jury summons the other day and am called for 8-25 duty; curious to see if I will be eliminated again.
The last time I went, prior to being questioned by the lawyers, the judge went over circumstantial evidence and asked if we would be able to convict if there was no direct evidence.
IN an effort to explain and among other things, she said imagine your child is in the kitchen and you place a freshly baked plate of cookies on the table with the instructions not to eat any. The window is open.
You come back in a bit and a cookie is gone but your child emphatically denies eating the cookie.You know that your child loves cookies.No one else is home and there is no door to the outside from the kitchen.
It is always possible that someone came in through the window, stole the cookie and left. It is possible that aliens came in and stole a cookie.
But are those a reasonable conclusions? Would we be able to "convict" the child based on that evidence alone?

She also told us that a large amount of the testimony would be solely the word of LE. Would we be able to trust the word of LE on face value? or would that not be sufficient to convict. IOW,do you generally consider LE to be honest?

She explained circumstantial evidence to us very well and many of us were let go based on our answers to her hypotheticals.

Would professional jurors that understand the strength of circumstantial evidence be any better prepared to apply the basics of circumstantial evidence when those that are not comfortable with it have already been excused froma traditional jury?

 

[noseyone]

The idea makes me cringe too. Do we really have so little faith in one another that we don't feel safe being judge by a jury of our peers? I know I would take it very seriously and have been truly appalled since the outcome of the trial at the vile being spewed at the jury. The anger should really be directed at the prosecution, not the jury.

I cannot agree with this at all. The Jurors are responsible for not following the Law and should be held accountable. They have already stated that they did not review any evidence at all, nor did they deliberate. They spoke about the case amongst themselves, while being seqestered. They broke the Law, and showed us what a jury of ICA peers will do. Find everyone else responsible, including Caylee, for her Murder. This trial was a Travesty of Justice, and I pray it gets changed soon. I'm tired of being told that I have to respect this Jury, and their decision, NO I DON"T. Just because someone does not agree with thie Jury, does not mean that I or anyone else is spewing Vile. I hope the anger at this Jury will last for a long time, and produce lots of changes to our current system.
JMO

 

[goldenlover]

I have seen people on this forum say that the state should have played the video of Caylee singing "you are my sunshine" for the jury and that it would definately make them come back with a guilty verdict. That is ridiculous. How would that tell you if ICA was guilty or not? These are the kinds of jurors you do not want on a jury, the ones that base their decision soley on emotion and media sensationism.

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

Have you seen many of the top law professors speaking out recently in the media. The majority of them have said that the jury made the right decision, they evidence was not there. For most of the states scientific evidence, there was another expert that disputed it. There was hardly any circumstantial evidence that was proven to be a fact. The only thing they had was the 31 days of lies.

I have not seen any law professors or lawyers speak recently in the media and agree with the jury (admittedly, I have mostly been watching CNN and HLN so that could be why). As I am always open to other opinions and viewpoints, I would love to hear or see that, do you have any links?

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I cannot agree with this at all. The Jurors are responsible for not following the Law and should be held accountable. They have already stated that they did not review any evidence at all, nor did they deliberate. They spoke about the case amongst themselves, while being seqestered. They broke the Law, and showed us what a jury of ICA peers will do. Find everyone else responsible, including Caylee, for her Murder. This trial was a Travesty of Justice, and I pray it gets changed soon. I'm tired of being told that I have to respect this Jury, and their decision, NO I DON"T. Just because someone does not agree with thie Jury, does not mean that I or anyone else is spewing Vile. I hope the anger at this Jury will last for a long time, and produce lots of changes to our current system.
JMO

Until I see them being tried in a court of law for breaking the law then I can't take anything that you are accusing them for as FACT.

Oh, and one more thing. Do not assume that people who accept the verdict are blaming "Caylee, for her murder." What an absolutely terrible thing to say.

 

[gitana1]

I believe it is clear that the jurors did not understand reasonable doubt. At least number three did not nor did the alternate. I base this on the fact that number 3 and number 14 both said there was no cause of death nor motive shown. Neither are necessary to proving murder. And "reasonable" doubt does not mean no doubt at all.

The majority of Americans, from both sides of the aisle, and from all walks of life, feel that there was no reasonable doubt. Those able and willing to serve for several weeks on a sequestered jury simply do not represent a good cross sampling of U.S. citizens. The proof is in the pudding - most attorneys, legal analysts and trial watchers are stunned, shocked and outraged by the verdict.

However, I am against professional juries (even though my dear ol' dad thought that was the way to go!). I think professional juries would be to vulnerable to corruption or biases based on relationships with attorneys they get to know, etc.

I feel that the answer, which is not a great one or one easy to implement, is to concentrate much more on critical thinking skills in school. Now, we teach to the test rather than allowing our students to use their logic and reasoning skills. There is a great inability of many students graduating from high school to apply logic to many situations.

I worried greatly about juror number 4. I said that when a person lacks the ability to understand complicated forensics, etc., they go back to how things "appear". A nice, friendly lawyer would never lie to them. A sweet, female defendant cranking her chair down low to appear small, smiling at the jurors, looking appropriately sad when called to do so, could not have killed her kid. Little did I know that my fears would apply to the jury as a whole.

The fact is, as can be seen by the dearth of Americans who can participate intelligently or knowingly in the political process, many of whom do not know the names of their local representatives or of key political figures making decisions that affect our lives, and as can be seen by the woeful lack of knowledge among many of us about the larger world outside our borders, points to the dumbing down of America. It's been going on for awhile.

This is not to say that we are stupid. But it is to say that we have wandered away from a solid K-12 education that involves teaching us to use our brains to solve problems, rather than memorizing, and that has neglected some seriously important and useful information as part of that learning process. When combined with the ridiculous rules that govern the jury system, like punitive sequestration and virtually no compensation for jurors, we can have major problems in cases all across the country, not only ones where people like casey or OJ walk free, but also where the innocent are convicted of crimes they do not commit. :twocents:

 

[gitana1]

The idea makes me cringe too. Do we really have so little faith in one another that we don't feel safe being judge by a jury of our peers? I know I would take it very seriously and have been truly appalled since the outcome of the trial at the vile being spewed at the jury. The anger should really be directed at the prosecution, not the jury.

I've asked myself this question before in the context of being tried for something I did not do. My answer was that no, I would not feel safe being judged by a jury of my "peers". In most cases when the case is complicated and the trial will be a long one, I do not think the available jury would be my peers at all.

 

[gitana1]

Here's another reason I don't think the jury understood reasonable doubt: Most people do not understand circumstantial evidence and it appears this jury certainly did not.

Ballistics, DNA testing, forensics, fingerprints, all of that is circumstantial evidence. The opposite of circumstantial evidence is direct evidence. Direct evidence is a witness who actually saw the crime committed, for example.

Many cases do not involve any direct evidence. Few people seem to understand that. Thus, they give circumstantial evidence far less weight than it should have.

 

[JBean]

Here's another reason I don't think the jury understood reasonable doubt: Most people do not understand circumstantial evidence and it appears this jury certainly did not.

Ballistics, DNA testing, forensics, fingerprints, all of that is circumstantial evidence. The opposite of circumstantial evidence is direct evidence. Direct evidence is a witness who actually saw the crime committed, for example.

Many cases do not involve any direct evidence. Few people seem to understand that. Thus, they give circumstantial evidence far less weight than it should have.

This is a good point. Even with the amount of research into cases as this forum does,I very often see many members do not understand this distinction and consider DNA and fingerprints as direct evidence.
This is not a diss on the community here! It is just a general misunderstanding by many.

Gitana do you find this to be an argument for professional jurors?

 

[chakti]

How can a jury of one's peers not be reasonable? You are a peer. I am a peer. Each and every one of us is a reflection of our society and we are all peers. Are you suggesting that you don't trust any of your fellow human beings? Or only a select few? Our society is more civil and more educated today than it has been in the history of mankind. Do we really not have enough faith in our society to trust a jury of peers? If not, that is sad, and it's a reflection of ALL OF US, not just those whom you think are "unfit" to sit on a jury. Are we really going to have a list of criteria for people to sit on a jury? The jury is meant to reflect a society as a whole and not be made chosen based on a philosophy of elitism. MOO.

Clearly this jury did not reflect society as a whole.

 

[Kaybug]

As if we do not have enough controversy floating around, thought I would throw some more into the mix.
Would you support moving to a professional juror system as opposed to the current jury of one's peers? Would that have made a difference in this case and if so would it have been at the expense of our current judicial values?
Many people feel this trial was a case in point regarding moving to a professional juror system.

Personally the thought of professional jurors makes me cringe.

NO, I definitely would not. The thoughts of that are really scary.

 

[Hallslm]

I think jurors should be paid better so more people can do jury duty. Had the KC jury had been people who are more of the world(working and exposed to news and current events) the verdict would have been guilty, IMO.

 

[gitana1]

This is a good point. Even with the amount of research into cases as this forum does,I very often see many members do not understand this distinction and consider DNA and fingerprints as direct evidence.
This is not a diss on the community here! It is just a general misunderstanding by many.

Gitana do you find this to be an argument for professional jurors?

It is a good argument but not one I would make. As I said above, I think professional juries would be too vulnerable to corruption.

 

[otto]

Interesting thought Otto. My knee jerk reaction is bearing the burden of cost for a "workshop" and if this would bog down and already backlogged system.

Perhaps the cost should be covered by any media outlet that disseminates pre-trial information, or entertainment presenting justice system simplificaton. I realize that's not likely to happen, but that would be where I would like to see the responsibility for costs. Law schools could introduce a jury workshop that is mandatory for all jurors - it wouldn't cost that much to run a one or two day workshop through an existing facility.

 

[Salem]

I am always eliminated during voir dire. I just got my jury summons the other day and am called for 8-25 duty; curious to see if I will be eliminated again.
The last time I went, prior to being questioned by the lawyers, the judge went over circumstantial evidence and asked if we would be able to convict if there was no direct evidence.
IN an effort to explain and among other things, she said imagine your child is in the kitchen and you place a freshly baked plate of cookies on the table with the instructions not to eat any. The window is open.
You come back in a bit and a cookie is gone but your child emphatically denies eating the cookie.You know that your child loves cookies.No one else is home and there is no door to the outside from the kitchen.
It is always possible that someone came in through the window, stole the cookie and left. It is possible that aliens came in and stole a cookie.
But are those a reasonable conclusions? Would we be able to "convict" the child based on that evidence alone?

She also told us that a large amount of the testimony would be solely the word of LE. Would we be able to trust the word of LE on face value? or would that not be sufficient to convict. IOW,do you generally consider LE to be honest?

She explained circumstantial evidence to us very well and many of us were let go based on our answers to her hypotheticals.

Would professional jurors that understand the strength of circumstantial evidence be any better prepared to apply the basics of circumstantial evidence when those that are not comfortable with it have already been excused froma traditional jury?

Great post JBean. I firmly believe this jury failed because they did not understand the purpose and use of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is key in many trials and it is necessary to define it and explain it, especially in a case as complex as this one.

Salem

 

[otto]

Right. Like "reasonable doubt."

There's reasonable doubt, and unreasonable doubt. I believe that the jury, in this case, expressed unreasonable doubt. We have heard that juror #3 believed that Ms Anthony was not innocent, but she didn't know how Caylee died and stated that without knowing how she died, she was unable to determine punishment. The jury did not need to have a video of how she died or determine punishment, and the fact that the juror discussed those two points tells me that she did not understand the scope of her responsibilities.

 

[Schu7]

Having professional jurors would not give anyone a fair and impartial jury.

Impartial jury's are a myth. The rhetoric the lawyers use when tying any case prove that point. Lawyers go after jury emotions, that is a fact. And there is no impartiality in emotions. Or logic. Or clear truth's. I respectfully believe you should think about what you stated here.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

There's reasonable doubt, and unreasonable doubt. I believe that the jury, in this case, expressed unreasonable doubt.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[otto]

I like your idea about the workshop.

Perhaps an inexpensive solution would be a short videotaped message for jurors to watch after the selection process ends (but before the trial begins).

I think an interactive classroom workshop would be more effective. Most people zone out with a video lecture so there would be no guarantee that it made any difference. With a workshop that delivers a few basic principals, interrupted with short individual and group exercises, I think jurors would have a better chance of understanding the scope of their responsibilities.