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.
Well they have no choice but to sequester them. But when done properly they really shouldn't have much contact with each other outside of the courtroom. And a deputy is supposed to be with them whenever they are out of the courtroom or hotel and monitoring what they say to make sure they don't discuss the case. I don't think weird alliances were formed here although I do think they all deferred too much to the jury foreman who was overly impressed with himself.
Interesting.....many experts and veteran court watchers would disagree.
Interesting.....many experts and veteran court watchers would disagree.
Having a rapport with someone is different from forming alliances. And those "experts" and "veteran court watchers" probably also predicted a victory for the prosecution. Basically just because they think otherwise doesn't mean it's true. I think many people came up with theories like this about the jury in an effort to find a way to allege jury misconduct, hoping to get the verdict overturned.
And those "experts" and "veteran court watchers" probably also predicted a victory for the prosecution
Yes, just as most everyone else did.
Quote:
Basically just because they think otherwise doesn't mean it's true
Agree
Quote:
I think many people came up with theories like this about the jury in an effort to find a way to allege jury misconduct, hoping to get the verdict overturned.
Point 1. It was mentioned before the verdict had come down
Point 2. There was jury misconduct, revealed by the testimony of one of the jurors themselves. I discussed it at length with Bosco on here back in July I believe it was. Here is the link if you care to take a look. My comments begin on poage two and continue on from there. Another Anthony Juror Speaks Out ...
Point 3. If these people, whoever it is you are speaking of, made these things up in the hopes of getting a verdict over turned, they obviously had little to no understanding of how the process works.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 12-17-2011 at 01:29 PM..
What you discussed in that thread did not amount to jury misconduct. I think this issue shows what is really wrong with this situation: you can't separate your personal feelings About the verdict from the actual legal process.
What you discussed in that thread did not amount to jury misconduct. I think this issue shows what is really wrong with this situation: you can't separate your personal feelings About the verdict from the actual legal process.
Sure I can. If you would ask me if I thought Casey Anthony shoukld be able to be tried again, I would say absolutely not. If we changed the law tomorrow I would still say no. I would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion?
I do hope you read the entire discussion between Bosco and I, because in it I outlined perfectly how the jury violated the instructions and didn't conduct the process in the correct manner. You have to actualy read it, skimming it wont do.
Here DI, read this post particularly......
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
[/u][/i][/b]
No problem. If you listen to the jury instruction, and then listen to the questions asked while they are poleing the jury, you will see and understand that a juror is supposed to come to their decision of their own free will and that a verdict is supposed to be a true and accurate account of EVERY juror's decision. If there was a juror that said 'O.K., whatever you all want." Because He knew he wasn't going to convince us." does that sound as if he came to a "not guilty" verdict of his own free will? Or at the very least, does it sound like this verdict was a true and accurate account of what HE felt about this case? I think not. He was lazy and didn't feel like arguing the point so he just went along with everyone else because he wanted to get the hell outa there.
Your rebuttal?
{oh man, ive been watching too much court tv lol }
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 12-17-2011 at 06:36 PM..
Sure I can. If you would ask me if I thought Casey Anthony shoukld be able to be tried again, I would say absolutely not. If we changed the law tomorrow I would still say no. I would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion?
I do hope you read the entire discussion between Bosco and I, because in it I outlined perfectly how the jury violated the instructions and didn't conduct the process in the correct manner. You have to actualy read it, skimming it wont do.
Here DI, read this post particularly......
I read that post. You didn't outline actual juror misconduct. But that's what happens when people think they can watch television and learn how the court process works.
I arrived at my conclusions based on your comments in this thread alone.
I read that post. You didn't outline actual juror misconduct. But that's what happens when people think they can watch television and learn how the court process works.
There you go making your ASSumptions again..... You have no idea how much or how little training I have in criminal law, and let me just say that customarily I dont comment on subjects I know little about.
You may not be able to make a case for jury misconduct, but you can certainly argue that these jurors did not follow, to the letter, the instructions given them, based on their own revelations to the media. They took the lazy way out and came to a hasty conclusion.
Quote:
I arrived at my conclusions based on your comments in this thread alone
Well thats a pretty poor source dont you think? Considering the majority of my comments in this thread have been about jeff ashton, his book, and the job he did on the prosecution team. Something that IS based on opinion, speculation, and emotion. You cant hardly judge my opinions on the verdict based on what is in this thread.
There you go making your ASSumptions again..... You have no idea how much or how little training I have in criminal law, and let me just say that customarily I dont comment on subjects I know little about.
didn't you make the comment about watching too much Court Tv? People with training in criminal law wouldn't normally make comments like that. and people with "training" in criminal law (whatever that means) don't normally make some of the comments you've made.
Quote:
You may not be able to make a case for jury misconduct, but you can certainly argue that these jurors did not follow, to the letter, the instructions given them, based on their own revelations to the media. They took the lazy way out and came to a hasty conclusion.
I don't think that can be said at all. You picked out some very subjective things to nitpick to reach your conclusion. Things that are not easy to prove.
Hasty conclusion or not, their verdict is supported by what was shown at trial. People who stubbornly refuse to admit that are still going by what the general public thought the verdict should be. And Ashton was counting too much on the jury following public opinion. I would never read his book. I'm not impressed by him at all.
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.
You have no idea how much or how little training I have in criminal law, and let me just say that customarily I dont comment on subjects I know little about.
and people with "training" in criminal law (whatever that means) don't normally make some of the comments you've made. 
