I have been a jury coordinator for sequestered juries where the death penalty was possible. It was a unique experience that will always mean alot to me. Viewing juries from the outside is different from getting to be with them 24/7. I was in charge of their hotels, meals, entertainment. After listening to disturbing testimony all day, it is important for juries to get a break. You can't get a fair verdict if you have a strung out, irritable jury. One thing I learned from watching my juries was this - it is easy (relatively easy) for most of us to say we are for or against the death penalty when asked as potential jurors. Virtually everyone knows where they stand on that. On the juries I served with, people were not picked to serve if they could not at least consider the death penalty an option - meaning that they were not picked if they would ALWAYS vote no on the death penalty no matter what the evidence or how heinous the crime. So, my juries had 100% members who said they could at least consider the option if the evidence warranted it. Despite that fact, as I watched my juries, I learned that it was an entirely different thing, no matter how heinous the crime, to be one of twelve people basically putting someone to death. A person who is "for" the death penalty and could sit watching a trial on TV, begging for the death penalty, could have a very, very difficult time when they were asked to be the one to sign someone's death warrant. Basically, each juror always could feel that if he/she held out, the defendant would not die. To take that further, a jury member often feels the very personal weight of deciding whether someone should die. Those people who find the crime so heinous are then put in a position to exact justice by killing someone else.
It is interesting to watch. I was never in jury deliberations and my jurors always followed the rules and did not talk about the case (that was part of my job to make sure of that). But, over time, I could see their personalities. By watching them, I could see the weight over them. I could see how careful they were to follow the rules and how carefully they listened to the evidence.
It was one of the highlights of my career to get to work with sequestered juries. But, since that time, I have become much more compassionate for what individual jurors go through. To find someone guilty based on evidence is one thing. But, the penalty phase brings an entirely different responsibility which, I believe, is acutely felt by anyone who takes their responsibility seriously as a juror.
I am not offering this for debate - whether it is right or wrong - or whether that should be the case in this case or not. But, I am mindful that as I sit here feeling like I know what the penalty should be, that there are 12 people sitting there who, if they find her guilty, will have an awful weight on their shoulders if they ultimately reach the question of whether JA should be put to death.
Since that time, I have felt great respect and tremendous compassion for how jurors lives are altered by seeing these pictures, listening to this evidence, and having the weight of it all on them at the end of the trial. It is a tremendous responsibility. And, I am fortunate to have been blessed by working with jurors who took those responsibilities very seriously.
just watched Abe on Drew.... Wow, hard to tell who the bigger douche is... Abe or Drew! I can't decide! 
