I was once one of two holdouts on a felony jury. In another felony trial I was among the eleven who agreed. Presentation of those trials took hours and we had to return the next day to finish hearing evidence on at least one. The witness list was in the teens in the Federal case, two or three on the other. Our deliberation took almost as long as the trial, half a day at least each time. Both were years ago, so my times aren’t exact. My point is the proportion of time hearing testimony to time deliberated was about equal. The Casey Anthony trial lasted about six weeks. The jury deliberated eleven hours.
In the trial where I was a holdout I was certain the defendant was guilty, but so much conflicting testimony and alternate theories were presented that I could not be sure. I had reasonable doubt that the crime might have been perpetrated by another. So we talked, and talked, and talked. Finally another juror recalled testimony he thought pointed undisputedly to the defendant. I had not heard that. Neither had the other holdout. We asked the court clerk to let us see the testimony, thinking someone would just read it to us. Instead the court was reconvened, we all returned to the places we had been hours before, and the clerk read the portion we asked about. We adjourned to our room, voted and delivered a unanimous decision. We had all listened, but it was so easy to miss something important. At that time no notes were allowed either. Only two of us missed the key element.
The other case was similar, except that after hours of discussion someone mentioned particular testimony. The lone holdout said she had not heard that. The courtroom was set up again and the court reporter asked to read the testimony in question. I read the defendant’s lips as he said to his attorney, “I said that?” The vote immediately after that was unanimous for guilty.
While I totally respect the Casey Anthony jury and know what a gut wrenching job they had, I have to wonder at the brevity of their deliberation. You writers out there know that you may think a story or novel complete many, many times, but a critique group or editor will dig deeper and see something you missed. For that reason, as much as I hate to criticize a jury, I am afraid they didn’t dig deeply enough. Perhaps a few more hours, or days in this case, of discussion would have satisfied many of their doubts. But what is done is done. I can tell Juror #3 wishes she might have been able to connect more dots and perhaps she could have had those twelve have had a longer discussion. But maybe not. Remember all of us heard much more than they did both on court TV when the jury was out of the room and in the three years prior.
In the elevator after a trial it is sometimes hard to suppress the tears even when you feel you have made the right decision, so I get it. The jury is to be thanked for sacrificing weeks of their lives for justice. I just hope that was the end result.
I agree that they should be thanked. They did their job. I’m sure they won’t soon (if ever) forget this experience. I think it will probably haunt them for a long, long time. I’m not sure if more talking would have done much good. If the proof was not there, it wasn’t there. And I think that when a jury goes in and takes an initial vote before discussing the evidence and lack thereof, it sort of sets them up. I think I read that the first vote they took in the Jury Deliberation Room on the murder charge was 10-2 Not Guilty. That’s a long way to go to sway those 10!
It’s all done. Right or wrong. It’s done.
I would not be able to get to not guilty because of the still attached mandible. Without tape, it would not still be a part of the skull. My reasoning would start there because I think that proves probably murder, or at the very least, manslaughter. Jurors can be convinced with time.
I’m glad to see someone finally mentioning the jury. No matter whether one thinks Casey is guilty or not, we weren’t sitting in that jury box trying to make the best decision possible. It is only through the willingness of people to do the job as best they can when placed in this position that our justice system prevails.
I hope I didn’t leave the impression I agreed with the jury. My best guess is that they didn’t delve into the facts enough and relied on their emotions, though that was what they tried to avoid. They may be watching too much CSI, also, and expect hard, forensic evidence, which you rarely get. Juror #3 said none of them believed or trust George because he was too hostile. Well, yeah, when the defense has put HIM on trial. While I respect their service, I believe the jury did not spend enough time deliberating and acted on emotion. Just knowing that the mandible would detach if not held by the tape would be enough to convince me someone put tape on the baby’s face. I would go from there.
My husband was so angry about the verdict. He just couldn’t believe it. I didn’t watch enough to understand how it was the jury could have come to this decision. Someone said it was all circumstantial evidence. Does that mean there can’t be a guilty verdict? I don’t think so.
Before sophisticated forensics all we had was circumstantial unless there was an eye witness to the crime. Seems without scientific proof the trend is to leave your common sense at the door.
Morning paper reveals defense consultant used social media (FB, Twitter and blogs) to help shape their message. When George looked bad in that venue they zeroed in on him. According to jury members, their feelings toward George played a big part in their decision. It’s a new day in court. Almost sounds like an expanded jury.