Posted on 07/13/2011 7:10:03 AM PDT by MindBender26
I was not on this jury, but I have been on four juries. 2 civil cases and 2 criminal cases including a rape case and a murder case.
I have actually been called to jury duty serve times since I first registered to vote at 18. Just lucky I guess. Some people never have to serve or even get called. In the rape case we concluded that a pilot for Continental Airlines raped a female member of his flight crew at a hotel in Downtown Cleveland. It was a case that was difficult to come to a decision on because we, as jurors where not privy to all the information. For example: It seems this guy was suspected of drugging her with ruffies. Everybody else knew he drugged her, including the media, but The prosecution was NOT allowed to present this part of the case because there was no evidence that the victim had drugs in her system. By the time she went to the hospital, she was back home in Houston and enough time had passed that there was no conclusive toxicology report. We did, however with the benefit of the remaining direct evidence and victim testimony, along with eyewitness accounts of what others saw and heard, we come to a decision of guilty of rape and he is now resides at the Grey Bar Motel.
The murder case was dismissed after the prosecution rested because the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to warrant the continuation of the case. The defendant in that case was later convicted of killing his mother and is spending life in prison. Every body on the jury, as well as the judge and the prosecution felt that the guy was at least involved in the murder, but they didn't have enough PROOF. Sound Familiar? Had the trial gone to the jury for a decision. There was no way we would have convicted. Yet, we thought (believed) he was involved. There was simply no proof to sustain a conviction after five days of the prosecutions case. After FOUR 10 hour days of deliberation we finally agreed to a unanimous verdict on all three indictments. Guilty on two counts, including rape. Not guilty on one count.
In all reality the jury did what they had to do based on the evidence.
Why is it so hard for so many to understand that a decision of twelve individuals is hard to reach? A consensus of twelve is difficult, a unanimous decision is almost impossible. However through our system of FORCING a group of twelve people to decide unanimously on a case we have built the best legal system in the World.
We also have been able to secure the liberty of most people who are unjustly accused. This does lead to the vindication of some people who most certainly are guilty of the crimes they are accused. That assures that a truly innocent person has every opportunity to not be denied their liberty by the State.
It is certainly more just to allow a guilty person his liberty than to deny an innocent person of their liberty. That is the essence of our criminal justice system and why a person is presumed innocent of all charges until the state convinces a jury of their peers that the defendant is guilty.
Clear enough for you?
Serve = seven
Maybe she just got crazy from the heat.
“Clear enough for you?” NO!
You still did not answer my basic question!
Your multiple Treatises on this subject are boring the hell out of me so rather than “discuss” Truth vs Justice with you, I’ll withdraw from the field and let you battle on against the Windmills of Your Mind.
Without Truth there is no Justice! “cest la vie”
Stay safe and God Bless you and yours.
When she gets out Sunday and having spent a few years in PC she will definitely be in HEAT! I am going to lock up all my sons and Grandsons to bar any ANT’s catastrophes in my family. I have no females in my progeny, or it would be the same.
By the way I live within 10-12 miles of the ANTs.
Have a Great day!
That is funny!
A court of law is among the last places to look for the truth! It is called a court of law, not a court of justice.
Thanks for posting this. Wouldn’t put anything past this sleazy defense team.
Not saying this is happening here, but HLN was just reporting that the defense team was actually sending people out on various boards to (a) see how public opinion was going, and (b) influence it if possible. Sure are some hardliners here, regardless of who they might or might not be working for.
The report wasn’t specific, other than “Facebook and message boards.” I listened to some of the tapes last night. Heavy duty ick factor. Since you watched, too, did you happen to notice how often Casey would say, “I’m telling the truth” or “I’m not lying to you” in those tapes? In general, I find that when someone says that a lot, they’re lying through their teeth. Yet the parents seemed to accept this? Or just scared to say that yes, they thought she was lying?
I heard this woman on HLN say Zanny the Nanny would have a hard time getting Casey because Casey will say she can not identify her. That is complete and utter nonsense. It has been proven there was no actual nanny so how could Casey identify her? She can/t.
This lawsuit is about an innocent person who is unfortunate to have the same name Casey gave. Her life was destroyed because of the lies Casey told. The press should stick to the facts instead of coming up with bs theories that defy reality.
This country is too steeped in manufactured answers. Reality needs to make a come back.
Knowledge sometimes makes a bloody entrance.
Jose Baez makes the opening statement “How can a mother not report her child for 30 days?”
Easy, Jose. She murdered her daughter.
I find one of the hallmark traits of a pathological liar is when they say things like, “I never lie.” I know a pathological liar who is very fond of saying that even as she is lying to your face. Her family is similar to the Anthony’s in that she ran (often terrorized) the entire household and her parents let her. They seemed afraid of her even when she was still a fairly young child. When Cindy and George tiptoe around Casey when speaking to her in the jailhouse tapes I get a hint of that same dynamic in the family. Chicken or egg? I don’t know.
So true. The media seems to be trying to re-write the whole story.
Here is something that is puzzling me and maybe someone knows the answer for certain. A lawyer once told me that when in court a lawyer is always considered to be “sworn in” when speaking to the court, jury, etc. Because lawyers are officers of the court they do not have to be formally sworn in like witnesses are.
Jose said in open court that Casey was molested by her father and brother. That is fine in an opening statement so far as it went but wasn’t he obligated to put up some proof of that? Since he didn’t prove it at all weren’t those statements something akin to lying under oath?
The jury certainly took his words as true, honest, and factual and a large part of that is because he is a lawyer...an officer of the court. I’m wondering if he couldn’t be brought up by the bar on charges for this, too.
Casey was AWFUL to her parents, yet they both just tried to soothe her, like she was some delicate little flower. Or ticking time bomb? Either way—not normal. And yet—the jury seems to have been taken in, hook line and sinker.
Really, if you think about it, it’s a simple case. The prosecution connected all of the dots, all they had to do was deliberate, meaning, look over the evidence, talk it through, ask for a readback or two. I will always wonder what actually happened in that jury room to sway half the jury.
I’m not sure about that. Various commentators have indicated that he should not have done that, but no one mentioned anything about any legal problems over it. Maybe someone who knows more about the law could comment?
What seems more disturbing to me is, Baez might well have known not only that Caylee was dead, but where she was, connecting a few of my own dots. Leonard Padilla was just on HLN talking about the same thing, and he reached the same conclusion. I don’t know if anyone can ever prove that he knew, but if he knew, wasn’t he obligated to report it to the police?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.