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.
Whippersnapper did, which is the point I contended. If you agree that it was not misconduct, why are you debating a strawman position?
Because I can always count on you for an argument!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
In all seriousness, this was NOT your typical trial where family members testify. It was internationally broadcast and a media sensation and she should have been punished since it was international news. I think she should have been made an example of ... that you don't LIE to the judge and jury and get away with it at a trial!
However, things are lax in Florida, land of the _____-ups (given that title by a Florida transplant who told me, "All the ____-ups end up in Florida because they can't make it anywhere else!" ... and he included himself in that assessment.)
Judging from the crazy things that people do in Florida and get away with, I can see where he got this idea ...
I think she should have been made an example of ... that you don't LIE to the judge and jury and get away with it at a trial!
Even If I agreed with you on this, do you know how hard it is to prove perjury? They have to prove that the witness KNOWINGLY lied on the stand. Me personaly, I think she infact DID KNOW that she was lying. But, quoting from one of my favorite movies, "law abiding citizen", it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court. They proved that she was wrong in her assertion that she was home that day, not that she knowingly lied about it. And since lie detecter results and truth serum are inadmissable in court, their kind of screwed if they DID want to prosecute.
Even If I agreed with you on this, do you know how hard it is to prove perjury? They have to prove that the witness KNOWINGLY lied on the stand. Me personaly, I think she infact DID KNOW that she was lying. But, quoting from one of my favorite movies, "law abiding citizen", it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court. They proved that she was wrong in her assertion that she was home that day, not that she knowingly lied about it. And since lie detecter results and truth serum are inadmissable in court, their kind of screwed if they DID want to prosecute.
Yeah she could say "I thought I was home sick that day ... blah blah blah" Good point.
AND deliberations with other jurors....If we didn't intend deliberations to be part of the process, we wouldn't have them. We'd just take a vote when the trial was done.
If this juror did not have convictions strong enough to stand up to the other 11 then he didn't have strong enough convictions to stand up to the other 11. There are 12 jurors for a reason.
I'm not saying he's right but he has the right to base the decision on both what goes on in the courtroom and deliberations. It sounds like it took deliberations to sway his vote.
Deliberations didn't sway his vote. He either didn't want to hang the jury, decided to get along go along, or just wanted out of there.
He isn't the 1st and won't be the last to throw in the towel. If I believed bard a defendant is guilty of manslaughter, I'd hang the jury.
Juries, the ultimate in a socialized society, twelve random people, picked to decide the fate of another, in our society. The dynamics of the entire jury deliberations would have been absolutely riveting...forget about reality tv...this would have been the ultimate in reality tv...too bad there are no cameras in the jury room. If there were, would the outcome have been different? It would have been fascinating to study, and watch the entire social dynamics...especially of this trial....
Deliberations didn't sway his vote. He either didn't want to hang the jury, decided to get along go along, or just wanted out of there.
He isn't the 1st and won't be the last to throw in the towel. If I believed bard a defendant is guilty of manslaughter, I'd hang the jury.
This is why we have 12 jurors and not 2. Out of 12 people, I would expect there to be one whose opinion would be swayed by popular opinion or who lacks the background to hang a jury. It's not an easy thing to do.
The consultants were tasked with monitoring voluminous social media sites to keep their finger on the public's pulse. To keep up with the blog traffic, Singer, owner of Trial Consultants, asked for volunteers on the website of the American Society of Trial Consultants and was overwhelmed with responses.
When Singer first told Baez about the social media plan of attack, he wasn't convinced. "He said, 'Do we really need to do that?'??" recalls Singer, who believes the prosecution also did not realize the need to monitor social media. Once Singer assured Baez of the necessity of social media, she and her team combed through blogs to isolate the "important negative comments" they felt needed to be addressed.
For instance, when the blogs started attacking George Anthony, Singer and her team took notice and encouraged the defense to beef up their attacks on the defendant's father. "We had to know how much to blame George," she said.
Similarly, bloggers "loved" Cindy Anthony until she took credit for the chloroform searches and then began to turn on the defendant's mother. At that point, Singer's team "distanced ourselves" from her and encouraged Baez to take a watered-down position in closing arguments that "at least she had some sort of maternal instinct." So we knew how to play that. That's exactly what Jose said in his closing: 'She's protecting her child.'
Singer said "we sent comments constantly to defense attorneys Jose Baez and Dorothy Clay Sims. They had to integrate the comments into the trial and think fast, and they geared their case toward that."
Watching the trial, the Defense requested they be moved to that area facing the jury as they felt they didn't have enough room and people behind them could read their laptops. Also they appeared to do a lot of texting or checking text messages. I did notice that.
So now we hear about how this guy WOULD HAVE convicted of manslaughter.
A day late and a dollar short.
Maybe if they had heard the truth instead of a bunch of liars?
If I had been on this jury and knew nothing about this case beforehand, I would be very angry that I was lied to and was left to base my very important decision on these lies that everybody got away with. Now the jurors have to live in fear because of these liars.
I do think they were lazy and wanted to get out of there but they believed the liars.
Oh well, live and learn.
Next case, let the next liar take the stand.
Yes, except here is the rub: They weren't given the change to convict of manslaughter. The DA, because of all of the blood lust by YOU, the general public, went for straight murder.
Had the DA tried her for manslaughter, they MAY have gotten a conviction, based upon the EVIDENCE. The simple fact is, the DA could not PROVE how the kid died; which sunk their case. How do you prove premeditated murder, without knowing how the person died? YOU CAN'T.
Nope. It's our business alright. The jurors made a decision on behalf of the people in this country and FL. in particular. They atleast owe us a full explanation as to why they came to the decision they did.
I certainly hope you don't broach the topic of politics and elected officials with the same attitiude.
You seem to fail to realise that some of us sat through the trial as well. And as far as the evidence not being there to convict, well, it would seem that 2/3's of 300,000,000 people would disagree.
very good post ! If a law is passed that the names of jurors are to be kept secret, we are going down a slippery slope, IMO. What a stupid and scary idea. The justice system is whacked up enought as it is.......... and I agree that those jurors had already made up their minds and I believe there could have been a FU attitude to all the people who had followed this case, on the part of some jurors. They took votes, they never called for transcripts, questions, etc, etc. I wonder if there wasn't a person or two in the jury room of very strong personality that bull dozed everyone else......maybe, maybe not......they could have convicted her of manslaughter.....gack ! it makes me sick to think of them !
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.
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.
