The Jury Speaks Thread

[oozer]

Does anyone remember how early the jury asked 'what happens if we can't agree on a verdict?' Kinda makes me wonder if it was the foreman's question.

i THINK it was about 2.5 hrs.

 

[Quester]

But that's exactly my point! It is common sense. It is trivial.

And that's why its existence is confusing to the jurors, which is not a trivial problem. It's something logic dictates should not be there. So the jurors guess the reason. And they apparently guessed wrong.

Ok ...

but the foreman/jury asked the Judge for guidance on which form to use when a unanimous verdict had not yet been reached ...

the Judge answered their question/cleared up their confusion by replying that they were to use the "Juror Question" form ...

and the foreman chose to ultimately use the "Verdict" form, despite the Judges clear response ...

so why, in your opinion, did the foreman use the "Verdict" form when he should have followed the Judges clear direction and used the "Juror Question" form?

a. He was an idiot.
b. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder
c. He was trying to force the Judge into making the life or DP decision.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.​

 

[JudyBolton]

I haven't said much of anything about this person...a waste of time mostly. What seriously bothers me about him and his thinking process is this... after all this time has elapsed and he has learned all the facts of JA since the end of the trial, he stills has these opinions of his. That is not only alarming to me because they are warped, but leads me to believe that he would never have voted for the DP, ever.

Yes - and he CONTINUES to go on TV.... I believe he thinks he can "persuade" the public that he (and the other 3) did the "right" thing.. he's a salesman and he is "selling" his point of view. He should not have been on this jury *inho*

 

[JSR]

I'm still stuck on the fact that some jurors were completely shocked and surprised when the Judge SS declared a hung jury and mistrial for the penalty phase.

Didn't the Judge respond in writing to the foreman/jury that they were to use the "juror question form" to inform the court of an impasse/anything short of a unanimous verdict?

Long, long shot but ... what if the foreman, seeing as how some jurors were switching their votes in favor of the DP, intentionally filled out the "verdict form" instead of the "juror question form", as instructed, and thus forced the Judge to call a hung jury and mistrial for penalty phase?

That could have been what happened. And he didn't want it to turn to a 11-1 situation. Either way it wouldn't have mattered because the foreman would have never changed his mind. He apparently was besotted by Jodi. Fortunately we can all breathe a sigh of relief that it won't be the foreman, but someone else, who decides if Jodi ever gets parole. If he was I'm pretty certain he wouldn't hesitate to give her a chance at parole. And I'm just thankful that he convicted her of M1. Based off his comments it could have easily gone as a hung jury on the guilt phase.

 

[Ricki]

Yes - and he CONTINUES to go on TV.... I believe he thinks he can "persuade" the public that he (and the other 3) did the "right" thing.. he's a salesman and he is "selling" his point of view. He should not have been on this jury *inho*

I for one would like to see what the other 3 have to say. Just wondering if all the mitigating factors they applied were the same as the foreman's.
To add to this I feel the majority of the public does not agree with him. I for one do not care if she gets the DP. I do want her to never be able to walk the public streets...ever.

 

[Sulamith]

Yes - and he CONTINUES to go on TV.... I believe he thinks he can "persuade" the public that he (and the other 3) did the "right" thing.. he's a salesman and he is "selling" his point of view. He should not have been on this jury *inho*

I might have misunderstood you, but are you saying Mr. Foreman should not have been on the jury because he is a salesman? You do know that TA was a salesman for PPL and most of his friends were salesmen for PPL right?

 

[Hatfield]

But that's exactly my point! It is common sense. It is trivial.

And that's why its existence is confusing to the jurors, which is not a trivial problem. It's something logic dictates should not be there. So the jurors guess the reason. And they apparently guessed wrong.

I think I kind of follow your point. By having that option on the form gives the impression that it is actually a perfectly fine decision to NOT decide all together, when the reality is that it is really bad to do that because it really just passes the buck to another jury OR worse than that is that the DA may not even choose to re-try this phase and could enter into some crazy plea agreement. The main problem with the way it is, is that it doesnt finish the job at hand and leaves the case in limbo, which really stinks.

I also truly think some jurors probably made the mistake of assuming the judge would decide either LWOP or LWP if they could not agree on DP or not.

The process itself is kind of flawed IMO. I wish they would just allow for a majority rules like some states do for this phase. OR if they cannot decide, then default LWOP or LWP and let the judge decide. Which is exactly what would occur if a 2nd jury doesnt decide either.
The process itself stinks. These 2 solutions in this paragraph would prevent this problem.

 

[BMoody]

Don't have a strong opinion on why the forman chose to use the Verdict Form instead of the Juror Question Form, despite the clear instructions given to him. I do know that he was not smart enough to use the proper form so he was not smart enough to decide anything at all! A dolt in my opinion. So, I now see my answer should be a. He was an idiot.:floorlaugh:

Ok ...

but the foreman/jury asked the Judge for guidance on which form to use when a unanimous verdict had not yet been reached ...

the Judge answered their question/cleared up their confusion by replying that they were to use the "Juror Question" form ...

and the foreman chose to ultimately use the "Verdict" form, despite the Judges clear response ...

so why, in your opinion, did the foreman use the "Verdict" form when he should have followed the Judges clear direction and used the "Juror Question" form?

a. He was an idiot.
b. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder
c. He was trying to force the Judge into making the life or DP decision.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.​

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I might have misunderstood you, but are you saying Mr. Foreman should not have been on the jury because he is a salesman? You do know that TA was a salesman for PPL and most of his friends were salesmen for PPL right?

I don't understand your comparison between the JF and Travis Alexander. Why do you put the two up against each other? Do you not believe in what Travis did for a living or ?????

JMO

 

[Hatfield]

Ok ...

but the foreman/jury asked the Judge for guidance on which form to use when a unanimous verdict had not yet been reached ...

the Judge answered their question/cleared up their confusion by replying that they were to use the "Juror Question" form ...

and the foreman chose to ultimately use the "Verdict" form, despite the Judges clear response ...

so why, in your opinion, did the foreman use the "Verdict" form when he should have followed the Judges clear direction and used the "Juror Question" form?

a. He was an idiot.
b. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder
c. He was trying to force the Judge into making the life or DP decision.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.​

IMO

I vote B

I truly think he had already made up his mind he was not giving DP no matter what. After only a couple hours into deliberations, he started asking the judge what to do if they could not decide. Therefore, I feel he knew he was not going to actually deliberate because his mind was made up and nobody was going to change it.

He did not like the answer she gave and he knew he would never agree with the rest and so his decision was final and he wanted to point that out as a final verdict form. Irregardless of the answer the judge gave him, he independently chose to hammer home the point that this was HIS verdict and he was making it everyones verdict as well because he knew he would never agree with the rest.

I would not be surprised if he was the one confused about thinking the judge would then decide for them, and he may have caused the others to be confused because he maybe explained it wrong to them. Giving them the impression that the judge would decide.

I really think if everyone knew what would happen, they may have tried harder or maybe forced him out of the foreman role. There was only 2 or 3 others voting for Life , so they had a chance to convince the others. He probably would never have changed his vote regardless, but it would have been interesting if he ended up being the final sole vote for life. I think they ended early thinking the judge would call it.

 

[karen302]

I for one would like to see what the other 3 have to say. Just wondering if all the mitigating factors they applied were the same as the foreman's.
To add to this I feel the majority of the public does not agree with him. I for one do not care if she gets the DP. I do want her to never be able to walk the public streets...ever.

so why, in your opinion, did the foreman use the "Verdict" form when he should have followed the Judges clear direction and used the "Juror Question" form?
a. He was an idiot.
b. He has Oppositional Defiance Disorder
c. He was trying to force the Judge into making the life or DP decision.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.

I do know that he was not smart enough to use the proper form so he was not smart enough to decide anything at all! A dolt in my opinion. So, I now see my answer should be a. He was an idiot.:floorlaugh:

Do you really think the other three are inclined to speak up after the way the Foreman has been ridiculed and slammed for his choices?

As I've said before, these people took 5-6 months out of their lives to decide this case...that deserves respect. It's easy to sit home in front of the computer and 'decide' someone needs the death penalty. It's another thing all together to actually be in the position of making that decision on a jury!

 

[Sulamith]

I don't understand your comparison between the JF and Travis Alexander. Why do you put the two up against each other? Do you not believe in what Travis did for a living or ?????

JMO

I was replying to Judy Bolton's comment...up stream. Please scroll up to see her comment.

 

[cosmos]

Trying to clarify my earlier comments:

Part 1

We all know that in a criminal trial, if you have one or more jurors refusing to go along with the others then that is a mistrial. Either the case has to be tried again or there is a plea deal or the state drops the charges. This is the common sense part, everyone should know it.

Now in the Arizona death penalty phase it's pretty much the same situation. If one or more jurors don't agree with the others then it's a mistrial. It just so happens that in an Arizona death penalty phase, there is limit of only one retrial, but otherwise it's a mistrial the same as any other mistrial. Again common sense, everybody should know it, except maybe the limit of one retrial.

Here's the rub. The jurors in the death penalty phase all agreed. They were required to sign a form saying they were unanimous. There was not one single juror who did not agree with all the other jurors. Yes, the jury was deadlocked on the question of life or death, but requiring them to swear they were unanimous apparently made it feel to them not like a mistrial. Hence the shock at the mistrial. The jurors might have been wrong to think that way, but I am quite sympathetic and understanding how this confusion could arise.

 

[Hatfield]

Do you really think the other three are inclined to speak up after the way the Foreman has been ridiculed and slammed for his choices?

As I've said before, these people took 5-6 months out of their lives to decide this case...that deserves respect. It's easy to sit home in front of the computer and 'decide' someone needs the death penalty. It's another thing all together to actually be in the position of making that decision on a jury!

Well, they didnt actually "decide" in the final phase. They "decided" to be "undecided" which resulted in passing the buck to another jury to decide.
The case is still in limbo.

IMO, I think the process itself is flawed in that final phase. Other states have a majority rules in this phase, and that would be one solution. Another would be to go ahead and default to LWOP OR LWP and let judge decide if the jury cant.

 

[Quester]

Trying to clarify my earlier comments:

Part 1

We all know that in a criminal trial, if you have one or more jurors refusing to go along with the others then that is a mistrial. Either the case has to be tried again or there is a plea deal or the state drops the charges. This is the common sense part, everyone should know it.

Now in the Arizona death penalty phase it's pretty much the same situation. If one or more jurors don't agree with the others then it's a mistrial. It just so happens that in an Arizona death penalty phase, there is limit of only one retrial, but otherwise it's a mistrial the same as any other mistrial. Again common sense, everybody should know it, except maybe the limit of one retrial.

Here's the rub. The jurors in the death penalty phase all agreed. They were required to sign a form saying they were unanimous. There was not one single juror who did not agree with all the other jurors. Yes, the jury was deadlocked on the question of life or death, but requiring them to swear they were unanimous apparently made it feel to them not like a mistrial. Hence the shock at the mistrial. The jurors might have been wrong to think that way, but I am quite sympathetic and understanding how this confusion could arise.

Correct me if I'm wrong but ...

I thought only the foreman had to sign the Verdict Form.

And ... how is it that you think you know what this jury was thinking/feeling?

 

[cosmos]

Part 2

I disagree with anyone who asserts the foreman wrote a question on the verdict form. (And I'm not intentionally trying to put words in people's mouths, so if nobody said that then don't worry about it, it just means I erred. )

It is true the foreman had previously asked a procedural question that was submitted on the question form. It was a hypothetical question. He wanted to know which form to use in case he needed to ask a certain question regarding a theoretically possible impasse. He never said he definitely would ask that question about an impasse. And he denied that they had actually reached an impasse at that time. That's my understanding of the question. The judge's answer was to use the question form.

IMO, implied in the foreman's question to the judge but not stated explicitly is another question: what the heck is the reason for putting "No unanimous agreement" on the verdict form? Is it there so we can ask the judge questions about an impasse? Is it there for some other reason? There must be some logic for having that on the verdict form but what is the logic? As I said, these are implied, but moo. This is evidence or juror confusion, but not evidence that they were confused enough to completely mess up and use the verdict form to submit a question.

Because, as it turned out, the hypothetical question the foreman was worried about never arose. They were not at what the foreman considered to be an impasse. That, in my opinion, is why the foreman never submitted the hypothetical question on the question form. Because the question became moot as soon as the jurors agreed that they were in a position to sign off on the verdict form that said they were unanimous. That is not an impasse. Under the somewhat confusing law here, an "impasse" turns into a final decision once they all agree to off on "No unanimous agreement."

The foreman's confusion over the mistrial I see as a separate issue, as explained in my Part 1. It does not mean that he wrote a question on the verdict form. There are multiple issues going on here.

 

[cosmos]

Correct me if I'm wrong but ...

I thought only the foreman had to sign the Verdict Form.

And ... how is it that you think you know what this jury was thinking/feeling?

I don't know what they were thinking. Several said they were surprised to learn it was a mistrial. I'm speculating as to what might cause them to be surprised. In most trials you would not be the least bit surprised to learn it was a mistrial. What is different here? I'm guessing.

Maybe only the foreman signed. I don't know. What I know is that they polled the jury and every single juror verbally affirmed that it was his or her's decision. Plus I'm pretty sure the bailiff started off by saying "We the undersigned ..."

 

[Sulamith]

If you've said it before ... why do you feel the need to repeat yourself?

I am not Karen and I'm Not Lisa...but a lot of posters say "As I have said before" because these threads move really fast. IMO, nothing wrong with that. :moo:

 

[Quester]

Part 2

I disagree with anyone who asserts the foreman wrote a question on the verdict form. (And I'm not intentionally trying to put words in people's mouths, so if nobody said that then don't worry about it, it just means I erred. )

It is true the foreman had previously asked a procedural question that was submitted on the question form. It was a hypothetical question. He wanted to know which form to use in case he needed to ask a certain question regarding a theoretically possible impasse. He never said he definitely would ask that question about an impasse. And he denied that they had actually reached an impasse at that time. That's my understanding of the question. The judge's answer was to use the question form.

IMO, implied in the foreman's question to the judge but not stated explicitly is another question: what the heck is the reason for putting "No unanimous agreement" on the verdict form? Is it there so we can ask the judge questions about an impasse? Is it there for some other reason? There must be some logic for having that on the verdict form but what is the logic? As I said, these are implied, but moo. This is evidence or juror confusion, but not evidence that they were confused enough to completely mess up and use the verdict form to submit a question.

Because, as it turned out, the hypothetical question the foreman was worried about never arose. They were not at what the foreman considered to be an impasse. That, in my opinion, is why the foreman never submitted the hypothetical question on the question form. Because the question became moot as soon as the jurors agreed that they were in a position to sign off on the verdict form that said they were unanimous. That is not an impasse. Under the somewhat confusing law here, an "impasse" turns into a final decision once they all agree to off on "No unanimous agreement."

The foreman's confusion over the mistrial I see as a separate issue, as explained in my Part 1. It does not mean that he wrote a question on the verdict form. There are multiple issues going on here.

Respectfully ... If there was an impasse (no unanimous verdict) ... there was no question to be asked (hypothetical or otherwise) ... the foreman was instructed to alert the court about the impasse (no unanimous verdict) on a Juror Question form ... the foreman did not follow the courts instructions ... the Judge could not have been clearer ... if the foreman/jury was still confused after the Judges directions ... well, then I refer back to my abcde choices in my post up-thread. IMHO. Over and out on this convo. :wave:

 

[elementary]

IMO

I vote B

I truly think he had already made up his mind he was not giving DP no matter what. After only a couple hours into deliberations, he started asking the judge what to do if they could not decide. Therefore, I feel he knew he was not going to actually deliberate because his mind was made up and nobody was going to change it.

He did not like the answer she gave and he knew he would never agree with the rest and so his decision was final and he wanted to point that out as a final verdict form. Irregardless of the answer the judge gave him, he independently chose to hammer home the point that this was HIS verdict and he was making it everyones verdict as well because he knew he would never agree with the rest.

I would not be surprised if he was the one confused about thinking the judge would then decide for them, and he may have caused the others to be confused because he maybe explained it wrong to them. Giving them the impression that the judge would decide.

I really think if everyone knew what would happen, they may have tried harder or maybe forced him out of the foreman role. There was only 2 or 3 others voting for Life , so they had a chance to convince the others. He probably would never have changed his vote regardless, but it would have been interesting if he ended up being the final sole vote for life. I think they ended early thinking the judge would call it.

Okay, now I'm confused. I assumed that the jury expected the judge to give her LWOP/LWP since they could not agree on death. I never imagined they might think that the buck would completely pass to the judge to decide life or DEATH. Am I misunderstanding?

If they did not expect a mistrial to be declared, then exactly what did they expect to happen after their non-verdict?