Casey Anthony Trial

[Clodfobble]

Sometimes, though, the public also has information the jury didn't have, because the judge didn't allow it for one reason or another. I remember an interview with 2 of the OJ jurors, and the host was showing them all this stuff that they hadn't been allowed to see. They were acting like it would have made a difference in their verdict, although I don't believe it would have after all.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sometimes, though, the public also has information the jury didn't have, because the judge didn't allow it for one reason or another.

Yeah. That's what I'm talking about mostly. The public almost always has information the jury doesn't have.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

The public almost always has information the jury doesn't have.

My jury experience says we were denied even basic information such as written text.

The judge's charge required us to meet seven points. But we were not permitted to have the judge's charge in writing in the room. Everything in the room came only from memory. So we literally invented the judge's charge. Due to no written transcripts and nothing else in writing, then anyone with imagination would invent testimony. Those who know only by having reasons why were silenced.

In a responsible world, all written testimony and even the judge's charge is in that room. IOW a jury does not have information that others have - my experience. Therefore a jury makes decisions based upon emotions; not based in facts and numbers.

Just like in the OJ Simpson trial, facts and numbers were completely ignored. A jury that was grasping facts and numbers had to be in that room far longer than 10 hours because all testimony, in a trial based in so much science, must be reread.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

My jury experience says we were denied even basic information such as written text.

Yeah. That's the way it is, and I think it's crazy. But my understanding is that they don't want the jury to have all the written testimony in front of them because they could wind up getting bogged down on trivial matters that have no bearing on the important issues of the case.

I think that both lawyers should be able to give the jury a ten page outline of their arguments with imbedded quotations of relevant testimony and exhibits. An executive summary of each side's position. That would give the jury some information they can refer to and would also keep them focused on the issues each side thinks is important.

[kerosene]

I was wondering that too, Nirvana. Where's the dad? Do they even know who Dad is? Yeah, who the hell knows.

The whole thing is a big show. I am surprised she wasn't even convicted of child abuse. I thought there was enough evidence to support even that. But like so many people mentioned already, the jury gets limited information.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

they don't want the jury to have all the written testimony in front of them
because they could wind up getting bogged down on the important issues of the case.

FTFY