03-22-2015, 05:00 PM
I agree, except for one fact that I'm wondering about. Did the Jurors tell her name or just her number? If I remember correctly, they may have called her first name, but not her complete name.
Also, juror 17 herself admitted that from the beginning, she deliberately separated herself from the other jurors. Wouldn't even eat lunch with them. To me, in the beginning, when there were 4 'undecided' and she alone, from the beginning (before they began their actual deliberations!) voted 'life'. And did not take part in deliberating, because (to me), she was set in concrete from the time they entered the jury room to vote for 'life', no matter what the evidence showed. Her mind was biased from the time she got on that jury.
If the investigation can prove she had spoken out AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY on social media or in any way before or during the trial, then she should not have stayed on that jury. That would show she should have told them during jury selection, "I don't believe in the death penalty at all, ever."
The other jurors did at least participate in deliberations and 4 people, due to those debates, made their decision whereas they had not decided in the beginning. The other jurors have no reason to continue to speak. They said what they needed to say and there's no more to add.
I don't think the Judge should have even considered a 'private' note from anyone except for the Jury Foreman. THAT was in their rules, that all questions would come through the foreman. That one juror did not even consider the rules laid out by the court.
But, she got a lawyer because she needed one. Not to prove her 'desire to be a GOOD juror', but because she had to get one, knowing she was being investigated, meaning...her facebook account and other social media was being investigated. From what Bill Montgomery said soon after the jury spoke publicly, they had no real evidence that she had been 'threatened'. She claimed that, and that may have been why her home was being guarded by the police. She claimed death threats. So, they had no choice but to check into her social media accounts, it seems to me. She made them obligated to 'protect' her, and thus...they did, but needed proof to see where any threats were coming from to continue 'protecting' her.
Also, juror 17 herself admitted that from the beginning, she deliberately separated herself from the other jurors. Wouldn't even eat lunch with them. To me, in the beginning, when there were 4 'undecided' and she alone, from the beginning (before they began their actual deliberations!) voted 'life'. And did not take part in deliberating, because (to me), she was set in concrete from the time they entered the jury room to vote for 'life', no matter what the evidence showed. Her mind was biased from the time she got on that jury.
If the investigation can prove she had spoken out AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY on social media or in any way before or during the trial, then she should not have stayed on that jury. That would show she should have told them during jury selection, "I don't believe in the death penalty at all, ever."
The other jurors did at least participate in deliberations and 4 people, due to those debates, made their decision whereas they had not decided in the beginning. The other jurors have no reason to continue to speak. They said what they needed to say and there's no more to add.
I don't think the Judge should have even considered a 'private' note from anyone except for the Jury Foreman. THAT was in their rules, that all questions would come through the foreman. That one juror did not even consider the rules laid out by the court.
But, she got a lawyer because she needed one. Not to prove her 'desire to be a GOOD juror', but because she had to get one, knowing she was being investigated, meaning...her facebook account and other social media was being investigated. From what Bill Montgomery said soon after the jury spoke publicly, they had no real evidence that she had been 'threatened'. She claimed that, and that may have been why her home was being guarded by the police. She claimed death threats. So, they had no choice but to check into her social media accounts, it seems to me. She made them obligated to 'protect' her, and thus...they did, but needed proof to see where any threats were coming from to continue 'protecting' her.
(03-22-2015, 04:13 PM)NERN Wrote: This time I disagree Lunarscope.
For me, it DOES matter who outed #17 first.
In the immediate interview after the verdict, the 11 jurors could have been far more diplomatic in their answers to the media and not blamed the entire mistrial on the one hold-out juror. it was not the time or the place to do so, IMO.
Instead, if they wanted something done about it, they should have gone to the court after the verdict and expressed their concerns.
If, after some time had passed, they wanted to express their personal opinions to the public, so be it.
They knew full well that their comments would start a fire storm in the court of public opinion and I find it very interesting that they are now silent.
They did the very best job that they could and should be commended for their deliberations but they deliberately OUTED #17. This put them in public favour. I disagree with their decision to speak so candidly to a public that was already fired up.
I have said before and will repeat - I hate the court of public opinion.