Observer,
Totally agree that Arias is suggestible. I believe she researches other cases to formulate her own plans. There is no doubt in my mind that Arias used her police interview to aid in concocting her stories.
Duluth,
Nancy Grace, IMO, is a disGRACE to her profession of journalism. She is a bully with guests, fabricates information (like running the opening statements and letting people think that they were from this sentencing trail) and she believes that she has the power to make such a difference in solving cases. She should have stayed a lawyer.
The other talking heads were getting paid for their opinions and to perpetrate the hype so that the network got the ratings they desired. I will NOT watch HLN!
.........
Unintended Consequences of Toying with Jurors’ Emotions: The Impact of Disturbing Emotional Evidence on Jurors’ Verdicts
by
Jessica M. Salerno from University of Illinois at Chicago
and Bette L. Bottoms, Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago
– March 1, 2010
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/unintended-consequences-of-toying-with-jurors-emotions-the-impact-of-disturbing-emotional-evidence-on-jurors-verdicts/
The following are some excerpts of the above article.
I found it rather interesting especially as to how it relates to this case and the attorneys involved.
Understanding a jury is hard work!
"...Attorneys attempt to elicit emotions in jurors during opening and closing statements, or through the use of emotionally disturbing evidence. These attempts might, however, cause unintended changes to the way jurors process or interpret trial evidence..."
"Emotional Evidence
...Of course, both sides in a criminal case — defense and prosecution — attempt to sway jurors' emotions, and in turn, their verdicts. Prosecuting attorneys might flash as many gruesome post-mortem photographs as the judge will allow to make jurors angrier at the defendant. Defense attorneys might make appeals to jurors' empathy during closing statements..."
"Prosecution evidence.
...Prosecutors are likely to try and elicit negative emotions (i.e., anger, disgust) in jurors in hopes of making them more likely to convict the defendant. One form of evidence that prosecutors might use to elicit strong emotion in jurors is gruesome photographs from a murder scene...
...A second type of emotionally disturbing prosecution evidence that might elicit negative emotion in jurors is victim impact statements... victim impact statements are relevant to the sentencing phase of a trial because they speak to the level of harm resulting from a crime and that any violation of the defendant's rights "were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt".
"Defense evidence.
...Defense attorneys also appeal to jurors, perhaps by attempting to elicit sympathy and empathy in jurors in hopes of making the jurors more lenient toward their clients..
...is the defense presenting disturbing details of a defendants' history of child abuse as mitigating evidence in an attempt to steer jurors away from the death penalty. Such evidence is often aimed at stirring jurors' emotions and certainly has the potential to be as emotionally charged as gruesome crime scene photographs or victim impact statements presented by the prosecution...
... that jurors were more likely to either ignore the defendant's history of child abuse or even to use this factor as an aggravator, than they were to use this evidence in the intended mitigating manner. They found jurors were more likely to discuss a defendant's history of child abuse to mean that his behavior was controllable and stable more than uncontrollable and unstable, respectively..."
"...the reason victim impact statements make jurors react more punitively is because they induce immediate visceral response that jurors later justify with evidence that fits their emotional reaction, not because they gain unique information from the statement. .."
"...Defense attorneys, however, are not the only ones who should be cautious about the unintended effects of toying with jurors' emotions. Prosecutors should also exercise caution and be aware of collateral effects of jurors' negative emotions. Angry jurors, for example, might process the case evidence less thoroughly, which might make them more likely to miss or make mistakes about evidence in general – including prosecution evidence. Jurors misinterpreting or forgetting evidence can be just as detrimental to the prosecution's case as to the defense's case..."
"...Attorneys should note that not all jurors will react strongly to emotional evidence, even the most gruesome photograph or the most compelling victim impact statements. Some jurors, for example, might have more experience with disturbing information (perhaps through medical or emergency rescue, playing graphic video games or watching graphic forensic television programming such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigators), which one could speculate might cause these people to react differently than others. Jurors also might be more or less naturally affected by emotional information..."
"...purpose is to caution attorneys about the complexity of emotion and decision-making and to caution against assuming the effects of their attempts to toy with jurors' emotions. Inducing juror emotion, such as anger, can affect not only jurors' verdicts, but also how deeply they process and how they interpret trial evidence. This can lead to many unintended effects, such as biasing processing and interpretation of evidence in emotion-consistent ways, increased errors, decreased ability to understand complex testimony, increased reliance on stereotyping, and perhaps many others that have not yet been identified."