Juries tend to form a bond throughout the length of a trial and this connection is even stronger among sequestered jurors. How could you, in that position, ward off succumbing to the pack mentality?
The only hope any of us have of avoiding being part of hive-think is if we contemplate it in advance. If we realize the pull of cohesion and guard against it. Enter the situation determined to think as an individual rather than respond as the member of a group to thought of the whole.
Let's say you accomplish that and still, you are deliberating a case that seems to have no right answer. You've looked at all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the state did not prove their case. But in your gut, you are certain the defendant is guilty. What do you do then?
If you follow the letter of the law, you would vote for acquittal. But if you did that and allowed someone you believed to be guilty, go free, could you live with yourself afterwards?
I've long been a strong proponent of civil disobedience. I think there are times when the clash between law and personal principle requires the most law abiding citizen to stand up against the law. But is the jury room the right place to do that?
I know that if I were faced with that dilemna, I would be torn. The worse the crime, the greater the temptation to do what is technically wrong for what felt morally right. But would I succumb to that temptation? I don't know. Would I be wrong if I voted "guilty" and stuck with it in a small room with eleven others in disagreement with me? Would I be wrong if I decided the greater good dictated that I hang the jury and give the state another opportunity to prove its case?
Honestly, at this moment, sitting here by myself, I cannot swear that I know what I would do if placed in that situation. I do know this: if I ever served on a jury again, I would think about my options--all of them. Hopefully, I would land on the right side of justice.
What about you? What would you think? How would you react? And would your actions benefit or harm our system of justice?
I would STILL go with my gut. I could not in good faith allow a murderer, especially the murderer of a CHILD to walk free. I would definitely cause a hung jury. Absolutely without a doubt. I have learned from this that sometimes juries are WRONG!!! Sometimes justice is blind! I have learned that we cannot count on justice from our court system every single time, that every now and then one slips through the cracks. Something needs to change so that this never happens again.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that we need to look at the possible ways to fix the jury system to better insure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are set free.
ReplyDeleteGreat article! My husband is a defense attorney and every night while the prosecution was presenting its case would ask me how they did. Every night I told him they had not convinced me yet. When they rested he asked again and said that I needed to look at all the evidence, as a whole, not just bits and pieces. When I did I thought she was guilty. Not of first degree, and definitely not the death penalty. She walks on Sunday having done more time for check charges and no time for the death of her daughter. Not right, not right at all. If I ever serve on a jury again I too will have to look at the greater good, the law be damned.
ReplyDeleteAs jurors for 3-month trial for a triple murder (dead child included)...we were subjected to one juror who's "boyfriend is in the FBI and the FBI boyfriend told her .." all criminal cases are frame ups/evidence is manufactured" . .ok then, uh huh!
ReplyDeleteThe sobbing in jury room girlfriend tried to make us believe all trials are just kabuki theater. Tell that to the 3-year old severed in half by military bullets that shred into hundreds of pieces upon impact....by the [murdered] mother and father's childhood friend ID'd by a survivor who was also his life-long friend.
Expensive expert flew in to tell us it is humanly impossible to experience trauma then identify your life long friend (or anyone) as the shooter at your car window. Juror submitted question: did YOU speak to the surviving witness/child hood friend of shooter?" ANS: no.
Then of course the other 'won't allow a verdict' juror who finally confessed after 6-days in a suffocating unventilated tiny room that he was a 'guilty' voter all along but didn't want to go back to work and/or his nagging wife....and that he "didn't want to make it easy for anyone to vote guilty".
3-months of sitting in horrendous back breaking jury chairs losing paycheck after paycheck was easy for him?
There were those of us on the jury that were not relying on our 'guts' to do the right thing, we relied on the vast evidence, common sense and surviving witness ID of the shooter.
If we relied on the intellectually constipated fellow jurors, we would have sent the victims 'friend' home to mommy and daddy sitting behind him scowling at the jury during the trial.
Diane, I just discovered this blog, and I can tell you what I will be reading this evening! I purchased your book, (Mommy's Little Girl) when the trial first started and I pick it up from time to time to reread certain parts...bless your heart for your excellent and informative info on this whole horrible fiasco....good luck to you, hope you are making tons of $$$$ from the book!
ReplyDeleteSusan, I did believe that it was first degree murder but I would have been satisfied with a second degree conviction. I think the world would be better served if more people thought of the greater good in all their decision making.
ReplyDeleteBegonia, What a nightmare! Glad for people like you who are willing to think for yourself and act on it.
Thank you, Sandy.
I was firm in my belief that this was premed. 1st degree murder. Initially I was hoping that she would receive the death penalty, which I believe is appropriate for certain egregious crimes (determined on a case specific basis. As the trial proceeded I decided that I would be fully satisfied that justice was served with the felony murder option, which would have meant Life without Parole. During the defense closing statement I was just praying for the jury to unanimously decide on any of the first 3 charges so that she would not walk and be free. There is no doubt in my mind that I would have hung the jury. I would be glad to do so. I have NO reasonable doubt of her guilt.
ReplyDeleteNancyB,
ReplyDeleteIt seems the jury used "beyond a shadow of doubt" as its measuring stick as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt." They also were unduly influenced by the defense's opening statement as demonstrated by the suspicion they've been expressing toward George. And there is no way they could have done due diligence on the review of the evidence in the less than 11 hours they spent in deliberation. Never once asking a question of the judge. Never once asking for the read back of testimony. And they totally dismissed much of the circumstantial evidence, for some bizarre reasoning thinking they could not use it.
I would not have a problem of finding the truly guilty, guilty. You are denigrating the gut reaction by not recognising that the formation of this gut reaction comes with sequential pieces of evidence in events noted before a murder, the time of the murder and after the murder. People who think analytically and have intelligently made obsevations of people in social contexts discern between the stages of I think X did it to with further information and evidence that X did do it and there is no question that anyone could have done it-hitmen hired by X still count as X did it.Since not many murders do the courtesy of providing date stamped videos of their killing the victim when the prosecution goes ahead there will be bits of their evidence that won't be flawless in some minor areas. Generally the remaining evidence if properly evaluated has core parts that strongly support murder and motive. Wether or not Casey had Caylee in and out of the trunk however many times, just duct taped the kid and threw her in the trunk, had kept the chloroform to clean car in case kid made a mess or what the prosecution said, Casey murdered her daughter. I found the backbone of the evidence was Med examiner Jan stating when it is always a murder if a child's body is found the way Caylee's was with the fact no cases ever of drowning child and no 911 called.Aside from Casey's behaviours her claim of finding her drowned put her at the childs death time with no 911 call, definate murder now. Before the drowning confession, the stupid could claim expert witnesses were hard to follow, but really how important are those details faced with Casey the last to be seen with Caylee, hiding the fact the child had died and her body is fouund dumped locally with duct tape over the face with the attitude shown over the child.If jurists look at evidence the prosecution have that is compelling and put that against the refutals of the defence it is not generally refutals that eliminate the states key facts. One needs to add the parts the state proves without expecting all parts to be provable. Can the defence prove without doubt the accused did not do the crime, generally no if they are guilty.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time when it looks probable , an accused fits the profile of a likely assailant of a certain type of murder, yet possible for another to have committed the crime, the evidence is insufficient to convince me that I can't dismiss the defences case I would need to accept that I cannot find them guilty. Those are the cases that at times when found guilty the accused had been innocent
Great posting having great features! Keep posting.Hope I will come back soon to this site. San Antonio Criminal Defense Attorney
ReplyDelete