Professional Jurors

[otto]

Not a bad idea ... I have two friends, one of whom is an assistant state attorney (not in Florida) and one who is a defense attorney in Florida. Both of them believe that ICA would have been convicted by 9 out of 10 juries of at least aggravated manslaughter. They also both stated that the questions asked by Juror #3 indicated they did not know what was necessary in order to convict. Both were also amazed that Juror #3 mentioned the death penalty as a possible influence in her decision.

IMO, juror education before the trial would go a long way as a well as a standard reminder before deliberations start.

It's so very obvious from the interview with Juror #3 that she had a complete misunderstanding of her responsibilities. Whether that was influenced by someone else on the jury, or her own pre-conceived notions is unknown ... but something went wrong. I would like to know what her mother's position was regarding guilt or innocence - since she said that her mother followed the case closely.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Clearly this jury did not reflect society as a whole.

Juries are not required to come to a decision that reflects the opinion of the masses (or the talking heads). They are expected to interpret the evidence as it is presented to them.

 

[DIXIECAT]

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.

BBM
You have captured the very essence of the argument for "circumstantial evidence." You seem to want to see the jury on trial for their actions/misdeeds before you can conclude what others have already inferred from the statements and actions of the jurors:
The request for the heart sticker, the alternate juror statement that "we" agreed on this and that, the very short time for deliberations, the comments about not voting guilty on certain charges because of the potential punishment for same... these are all "circumstances" that lead to a conclusion.

From this "circumstantial evidence," many of us have concluded that the jury did not understand HHJP's instructions and/or they were in a hurry to go home and/or they may have discussed the case prior to HHJP officially turning it over to them. IMO we could make very few decisions in life, if we did not rely on circumstantial evidence.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

BBM
You have captured the very essence of the argument for "circumstantial evidence." You seem to want to see the jury on trial for their actions/misdeeds before you can conclude what others have already inferred from the statements and actions of the jurors:
The request for the heart sticker, the alternate juror statement that "we" agreed on this and that, the very short time for deliberations, the comments about not voting guilty on certain charges because of the potential punishment for same... these are all "circumstances" that lead to a conclusion.

From this "circumstantial evidence," many of us have concluded that the jury did not understand HHJP's instructions and/or they were in a hurry to go home and/or they may have discussed the case prior to HHJP officially turning it over to them. IMO we could make very few decisions in life, if we did not rely on circumstantial evidence.

Are you serious? There is yet to be any sort of circumstantial evidence (or otherwise) presented to the public on the jury process that took place at the trial! You think one juror speaking out is evidence of a whole process? Sigh. I give up. Believe what you like. I'm truly done commenting on this.

And yes, I would want them on trial so I could look at the evidence before convicting them of an offense. As of now it's just a bunch of speculation based on an interview with ONE juror. Again, the public and the media have already convicted the jury of wrong doing. Cheers.

 

[crucibelle]

Eh, I wouldn't want professional jurors, but I'd like to see potential jurors take a competency test-- especially for the comprehension of legal terms and concepts. I think this jury didn't understand what "reasonable" doubt was. :tsktsk:


eta: Also, I think there was a problem with the sequestration, it was just too long for these people to be together and away from home. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it needs to be looked at. Perhaps not having them all at the same place and taking every meal together. idk

I agree with this entire post.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

I'm not sure what the answer is. So long as there are innocents sitting in prison for crimes they did not commit and guilty persons walking amongst us I have to believe change is necessary. Whether that change is a professional jury system, I just cannot say right now. I do feel something needs to change.

 

[kimmera]

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.

BBM~

Excellent point. The jury was not asked to determine cause of death. Even the ME could not determine the cause of death, and that's her job. The manner of death, however, was determined to be a homicide, meaning she was killed by someone. The jury was asked to determine, according to the evidence they were given, whether or not Caylee was killed at the hand of FCA. Further, they weren't asked to determine punishment either. If this person is going to be able to function as a nurse, I suggest she brush up on her listening skills, as well as following instructions. She failed Caylee miserably, IMO.:twocents:

 

[Schu7]

The ancient Greek law system is what our law system is based on. Around 620 BC Draco, the lawgiver, set down the first known written law of Ancient Greece. In 594 BC, Solon,an Athenian statesman and lawmaker, refined Draco's laws and is credited with "democratizing" justice by making the courts more accessible to citizens. And is was a totally open process. No professional lawyers or judges. Just an open discussion by the people who had an interest in the law court square. No hidden evidence. And the jurors were the spectators. The majority ruled at the end of the trials. Simple rules and a simple openness. Time and history have turned this starting law procedure into a monstrous mess. To the point that the masses can not see what even the jurors do behind closed doors. Or know all the evidence. We the masses must be protected from the truth. Because we are weak and foolish. Yet our "peer" group jurors are drawn from this pool of incapable masses. And that is a contradiction at best, a black evil sickness of our times at worst.IMO

 

[sorrell skye]

no way is my vote for professional jurors. ((resounding no)) this would be a little like a bench trial would it not???

What I would like to see is all work places having to compensate for jury duty no matter what the length of the trial and the court being able to compensate jurors who have plane tickets/plans, etc and also providing funds for kenneling pets, etc for longer trials (a fund if you will)

bbm

Under this proposed system of compensation, how would jurors who are self employed (such as myself) be compensated?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

no way is my vote for professional jurors. ((resounding no)) this would be a little like a bench trial would it not???

What I would like to see is all work places having to compensate for jury duty no matter what the length of the trial and the court being able to compensate jurors who have plane tickets/plans, etc and also providing funds for kenneling pets, etc for longer trials (a fund if you will)

What if it's a small business that is struggling to stay afloat. Quite a few of those out there right now.If they can't afford to hire and train a replacement while the employee is on jury duty,what happens.The backbone of this country is still small business.

 

[whiteangora]

Are you serious? There is yet to be any sort of circumstantial evidence (or otherwise) presented to the public on the jury process that took place at the trial! You think one juror speaking out is evidence of a whole process? Sigh. I give up. Believe what you like. I'm truly done commenting on this.

And yes, I would want them on trial so I could look at the evidence before convicting them of an offense. As of now it's just a bunch of speculation based on an interview with ONE juror. Again, the public and the media have already convicted the jury of wrong doing. Cheers.

bbm
So far, I know of TWO jurors who disobeyed the judges orders. The alternate male, the first one to come forward stated that "they" discussed things, and "we" felt this way and so on. They were clearly discussing the case before deliberations even began. Don't forget about the request for the heart sticker that was asked for by the group very early in the trial. hmm

 

[otto]

BBM~

Excellent point. The jury was not asked to determine cause of death. Even the ME could not determine the cause of death, and that's her job. The manner of death, however, was determined to be a homicide, meaning she was killed by someone. The jury was asked to determine, according to the evidence they were given, whether or not Caylee was killed at the hand of FCA. Further, they weren't asked to determine punishment either. If this person is going to be able to function as a nurse, I suggest she brush up on her listening skills, as well as following instructions. She failed Caylee miserably, IMO.:twocents:

No one knows how Laci Peterson died and there was nothing on her remains that gave any clues to what happened, yet a jury was able to examine the evidence and conclude guilt. If this jury decided "not guilty" because they didn't know how Caylee died and therefore couldn't decide on a punishment, then they were confused about their responsibilities. Something went terribly wrong in that jury room.

 

[dani]

As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no proof of this and believe that thus far, such conclusions are based entirely on speculation and not fact.

No proof? Their verdict is all the proof I need! :snooty:

They invested a whole eleven hours into NOT checking out the evidence, into NOT listening to the jailhouse videos, into NOT paying attention to their instructions, and NOT writing notes to ask the judge to help them understand anything that they found confusing.

It is my opinion they spent the first day talking (bullying?) the two that voted guilty of 1st degree murder on the 1st ballot out of sticking with their vote! They spent the 2nd day filling out the paperwork required for the verdict. It doesn't appear there was any "deliberating" (Definition: engaging in long and careful consideration) going on at all! They did not do their job.

There's a dead toddler out there and she didn't commit suicide. Someone murdered her. Who was the last person to be seen with her? Who didn't report her missing, ever? Where was Caylee during the 31 days? Who told a plethora of lies about everything? Who said. "Surprise, surprise" when told of the drowning theory? Who is the "good mother" that puts her baby in the same bed with her and her boyfriend? Who changed her crime scene story from Sawgrass Apts. to J. Blanchard Park, to the family pool? Whose boyfriend didn't want Caylee around and didn't want girl babies? Who was the ONLY person on the planet that would benefit from a dead Caylee? Here's a clue: It's the same person that will walk out of the OC jail a week from tomorrow, a free woman that got away with murder because a jury was in a biga$$ hurry to get out of Dodge and start negotiating for a 5 figure payday! IMHO.

 

[Nova]

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.

Makes me cringe, too. People tend to feel obligated to s/he who signs their paychecks. How do we get a fair system when the jury and the prosecution are working for the same people?

(Look at Italy. Italy has only only some professional jurors: the two presiding judges also serve on the jury. And nearly 50% of Italian cases are reversed on appeal!)

As appalled as many of us are at the Anthony verdict, we should keep in mind that 80% of trials for felony charges end in a conviction.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No one knows how Laci Peterson died and there was nothing on her remains that gave any clues to what happened, yet a jury was able to examine the evidence and conclude guilt. If this jury decided "not guilty" because they didn't know how Caylee died and therefore couldn't decide on a punishment, then they were confused about their responsibilities. Something went terribly wrong in that jury room.

There have been cases without a body at all with no cause of death and juries have voted guilty.If they decided not guilty for that reason they were wrong.

ETA: Sorry for off topic.

 

[sorrell skye]

No to professionals. That could get really political really quickly and the last thing we need is a bunch of politicians who want to keep their jobs deciding cases.

We do need some changes, but I would say no to professional jurors.

I agree, robmom.

Professional juries could also be a potential violation of a defendant's 6th amendment right to an impartial jury.

 

[ziggy]

Eh, I wouldn't want professional jurors, but I'd like to see potential jurors take a competency test-- especially for the comprehension of legal terms and concepts. I think this jury didn't understand what "reasonable" doubt was. :tsktsk:


eta: Also, I think there was a problem with the sequestration, it was just too long for these people to be together and away from home. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it needs to be looked at. Perhaps not having them all at the same place and taking every meal together. idk

Great post. I shudder to think of the "man on the street" type people that Jay Leno and others interview, sitting in judgment of another citizen.

I think jurors need to at least be able to understand jury instructions and the difference between the opening statement and the evidence entered for consideration - and have at least a small grasp on reasonable doubt.

They need to be able to understand the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

There has to be some level of competency for gosh sakes!

High profile cases come with that sequestration problem and fortunately it doesn't happen that often. When they say they can sit on the jury and understand the sequestration, I honestly believe they have no idea what they are in for and with this jury, I think it caused them to want to get it over with. Maybe the trial should have gone the other county instead of the jurors being shipped in and sequestered. Would it cost less to send each juror home with a chaperone each night than house and feed them?

 

[ziggy]

No one knows how Laci Peterson died and there was nothing on her remains that gave any clues to what happened, yet a jury was able to examine the evidence and conclude guilt. If this jury decided "not guilty" because they didn't know how Caylee died and therefore couldn't decide on a punishment, then they were confused about their responsibilities. Something went terribly wrong in that jury room.

Indeed Otto. Plenty of cases have been concluded and the guilty imprisoned without a body! There was no deliberation process. There was too much evidence for them have seriously contemplated anything except how fast they could get this over with.

 

[otto]

Indeed Otto. Plenty of cases have been concluded and the guilty imprisoned without a body! There was no deliberation process. There was too much evidence for them have seriously contemplated anything except how fast they could get this over with.

I really get the impression that this jury was hung up on thinking they had to have some clear understanding of exactly how and when Caylee was murdered. Juror #3 remarks about not being able to decide punishment because they didn't know how she died were so far "out there" that I can only assume that they ignored all the evidence because it didn't read like a TV show or a mystery novel. If this is the direction that juries are going, then juries need more education about the process before they engage in their civic duty.

 

[ijam]

It's so very obvious from the interview with Juror #3 that she had a complete misunderstanding of her responsibilities. Whether that was influenced by someone else on the jury, or her own pre-conceived notions is unknown ... but something went wrong. I would like to know what her mother's position was regarding guilt or innocence - since she said that her mother followed the case closely.

#3's mother said she was shocked at the verdict..