U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,804,828 times
Reputation: 7242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman View Post
He likes to control and end the Casey Anthony threads by his useless and dumb arguments.

I think he works for Baez or Mason or dates Fryer or is kin to the family.

The people spoke with Casey being the Most Hated Person In America. Yes the jury did what they felt was their job. But American Justice suffered that day. Justice was not served for the victim Caylee Marie Anthony.

I think the weaker members of the jury did cave. "Whatever" says it all.

I assume your talking about Bosco55David and not me? If so, then yes, I get what you are saying. Some people use little to no common sense when trying to debate and they just can't admit when they are wrong. Kinda like Baez, lol. Loopholes and clever wording are their freind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
16,408 posts, read 28,931,300 times
Reputation: 7273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
None of which equates to misconduct.
I did not say it was.

However, caving in with "whatever" when serving on a jury, while not considered something the court can punish jurors for and technically skirting the right side of the "rules," certainly is a far cry from living up to the standards intended for the jury system. If it were practiced widespread by jurors, either through fear or laziness, and many of them said "whatever," what use would the system be?

It's par for the course in this case. Look how Cindy Anthony seriously perjured herself and was shown to be a bold-faced liar by the evidence and what was done? Nothing ... "whatever!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:12 PM
 
9,542 posts, read 4,883,691 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
I think you better quit watching CourtTV and pick up a law book. Let's go back to your quote.



Free will - The juror made the decision himself without improper outside influence. This requirement has been satisfied.

True and accurate account - The verdict reflects his vote of not guilty. This requirement has also been satisfied.

You have no logical or legal grounds to claim jury misconduct. That is not even debatable.
"You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions."

By changing his vote guilty to ng merely to make a verdict possible, the juror assured the verdict was Not consistent with No. 2.

Not every rotten job by a juror or jury rises to the level of misconduct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,804,828 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post

As to the jurors, we need to leave them alone. Whether we agree or not, they did the job they were brought in to do. If you think Casey got away with murder, then push for law enforcement to come up with more charges. Given that her daughter is dead, there ought to be something they can make stick. No one gains anything by going after the jurors now, though I really would love to hear their explanation for letting her walk on manslaughter.
If you had asked me the time the verdict was read I would have agreed. However. the more I hear about what these jurors are saying, the more I have to disagree. So, maybe they SHOULD just keep quiet for as long as they can.

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
"You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions."

By changing his vote guilty to ng merely to make a verdict possible, the juror assured the verdict was Not consistent with No. 2.

Not every rotten job by a juror or jury rises to the level of misconduct.[/quote]
True, but as you have proven, this juror was in violation of INSTR. No. 2, and therefore, misconducted himself as a juror.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,182,493 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Ah but it is you who had better school yourself on the law. The juror is supposed to base their decisions on the evidence presented, and the deliberations ABOUT that evidence.


Yes but he didn't give in because the other 11 convinced him that she was not guilty, he gave in because, again, He knew he wasn't going to convince us." You had better learn a little about the law before trying to debate it.
I'll put an end to this nonsense right now.

Here's the deal, we now have a juror on record with what happened. If this juror's action was misconduct as you suggest, it will be investigated, so here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

My proposal is simple. If after X amount of days an investigation has not been launched, you make a financial contribution to a charity of my choice. If an investigation is launched, I make a contribution to the charity of your choice.

I'm flexible on the timeframe and amount of donation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
16,408 posts, read 28,931,300 times
Reputation: 7273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
I'll put an end to this nonsense right now.

Here's the deal, we now have a juror on record with what happened. If this juror's action was misconduct as you suggest, it will be investigated, so here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

My proposal is simple. If after X amount of days an investigation has not been launched, you make a financial contribution to a charity of my choice. If an investigation is launched, I make a contribution to the charity of your choice.

I'm flexible on the timeframe and amount of donation.
Sure there's going to be an investigation.

Just like Cindy was charged for perjury.

If that's any indication of how they "investigate" any possible wrongdoing in this case, then you already know you will be winning this "bet" of yours.

Why don't you just have fun playing your word games with other posters like you do on here instead of making ridiculous "bets?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,804,828 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
I'll put an end to this nonsense right now.

Here's the deal, we now have a juror on record with what happened. If this juror's action was misconduct as you suggest, it will be investigated, so here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

My proposal is simple. If after X amount of days an investigation has not been launched, you make a financial contribution to a charity of my choice. If an investigation is launched, I make a contribution to the charity of your choice.

I'm flexible on the timeframe and amount of donation.
Well, I would take you up on this but unfortunantly, jury deliberations are supposed to be done in secret and I'm not sure there are laws governing it. Even if there are, I highly doubt that if Cindy Anthony wasn't prosecuted for perjury, that any juror would be prosecuted either or that any investigation would be conducted. It's all hear-say as of now anyway. The juror would have to admit that that is what he based his decision on and what is the likelyhood od that if he could be charged.

Just to show that I'm a good sport and can put petty disagreements aside though, you let me know which charity you would like me to make my next donation to and I'll see that it gets done. Will you do the same? If so, make a donation of any amount either to St. Jude or to the ASPCA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,182,493 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
I did not say it was.
Whippersnapper did, which is the point I contended. If you agree that it was not misconduct, why are you debating a strawman position?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
"You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions."

By changing his vote guilty to ng merely to make a verdict possible, the juror assured the verdict was Not consistent with No. 2.

Not every rotten job by a juror or jury rises to the level of misconduct.
Read Ivory's post (#36) as she has already cut this logic off at it's knees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
Sure there's going to be an investigation.

Just like Cindy was charged for perjury.

If that's any indication of how they "investigate" any possible wrongdoing in this case, then you already know you will be winning this "bet" of yours.

Why don't you just have fun playing your word games with other posters like you do on here instead of making ridiculous "bets?"
Nice cop out, but unlike family member's lying on the stand to protect one another, jury misconduct happens infrequently enough to actually pursue, plus it does not require prosecution. It would simply pave the way for a new trial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,182,493 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Well, I would take you up on this but unfortunantly, jury deliberations are supposed to be done in secret and I'm not sure there are laws governing it. Even if there are, I highly doubt that if Cindy Anthony wasn't prosecuted for perjury, that any juror would be prosecuted either or that any investigation would be conducted. It's all hear-say as of now anyway. The juror would have to admit that that is what he based his decision on and what is the likelyhood od that if he could be charged.
It's been done. Summaries of Successful Jury Misconduct Cases

Also, the words of the juror being interviewed is not hearsay because he witnessed the events first hand.

Quote:
Just to show that I'm a good sport and can put petty disagreements aside though, you let me know which charity you would like me to make my next donation to and I'll see that it gets done. Will you do the same? If so, make a donation of any amount either to St. Jude or to the ASPCA.
Those are two good charities there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,804,828 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
It would simply pave the way for a new trial.
Very unlikely. It would have to be an EXTREME case of misconduct to warrant a new trial. Probably nothing short of bribing jurors would constitute a new trial. Do you realize the amount of time and expenses put into a trial.? Your talking about years of work and tax dollar amounts up into multi-millions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top