View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.ksro.com/news/article.aspx?id=2660844
excerpt: Jurors in the Chandra Levy murder trial have concluded a third day of deliberations without reaching a verdict....
....Deliberations resume Monday. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
sigsky
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 209 Location: South Carolina
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd love to knoiw what is going on in that jury room. 14 hours and no decision? How can that be? There is very little evidence to consider. Guandique's guilt has either been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or it has not. That any juror remains unsure just astounds me. I'm going to bet on not guilty but the length of deliberation worries me. God forbid we have to retry this! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9275 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't say they're unsure. I woulld say at least one and probably a couple have a different opinion and they're hashing it out, discussing the charges.
I did expect an agreement today but apparently they are discussing with some jurors the criteria for kidnapping or assault murder versus 2nd degree murder. How useful that is I don't know unless jury was split between 2nd degree and felony murder.
I can't believe that the majority wouldn't say there's another man's DNA on her tights, nothing except an inmate that says Guandique told him he knocked her down and left her unconcious that says he has anything to do with Chandra's murder, there is too much reasonable doubt to convict of murder.
I would say they are trying to match up the cellmate confession story with the appropriate charge to at least rule out two of three murder charges based on the testimony.
Then I think they hash out not guilty versus one of the murder charges.
If there are a few really convinced of guilt them this could go on awhile and they come back deadlocked and the judge will push them to reach an agreement, which would be more than another day after that.
I could live with a hung jury because there are so many people that believe what the government tells them, they will feel there's somthing to this.
Against consensus thinking, I would have had Guandique take the stand and explain to the jury what he was doing and tell them in person he had nothing to do with murdering a woman, tying her tights in knots, etc. and that he didn't say those things to the cellmate confession inmate.
This despite being cross examined harshly by prosecutors and explaining what he had done wrong and the price he's paid and lessons he's learned from those mistakes.
I also would have insisted the jury see the crime scene and surrounding areas, Broad Branch Road and Beach Drive. It is inexecusable that the jury can equate where Chandra was found with assaults against joggers.
We wouldn't have three days of discussion if they saw for themselves.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
laskipper
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If a Jury can ask for evidence, is it possible for them to request a Field trip
to the Crime scene? As you say and I agree, rd, there would be no need of deliberation if that could happen. They would understand.
Anyone know?
ls _________________ A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am pretty sure I have heard of juries making such requests. I'll see if I can find anything on that. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The jury in the OJ trial made a field trip to Simpson's home and Nicole's home - can't see how this came about yet.
It seems to me the jury in the Jeffrey MacDonald (Fatal Vision) trial went to the MacDonald home (not sure - can't find info so far). _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 Posts: 9275 Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Really? After it went to deliberations?
I would be surprised. I think that would be considered generating their own evidence if you will, or not limiting themselves to submitted evidence, etc.
On the other hand, they could say the maps and photos submitted are not clear enough and they want to see in person. I don't have any idea on that.
More importantly, I don't see the jury as so inclined. It would have had to be driven by defense lawyers, I don't recall any mention that it was requested and ruled against.
It should have been demanded. It would have ensured the right decision was made by the jury.
rd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry - I don't know when, whether before deliberations began or after - am going to try to find out. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
laskipper
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 Posts: 1232 Location: Northern Ohio
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Lone Ranger...
This juror took it upon himself to visit the crime scene during deliberations-
http://tinyurl.com/2fhoorg
Fair use excerpt:
People v. Collins,
813 N.E.2d 285 (Ill. App. 2004)
In homicide case, the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose from the jury foreman’s visit to the crime scene, which the juror testified was done in order to better understand the testimony of various witnesses. The prosecution’s contention that the crime scene visit was cumulative of photographs that were admitted at trial was unpersuasive given that the juror testified that the photographs that had been available during the trial had been inadequate and the ones that were available during deliberations came too late. _________________ A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves
~
French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find that jury field trips are not really all that rare. Wherever I could tell at what point they occurred, it was always before deliberations began. I noticed one case where the prosecution requested and one where it was the defense requested it. (Other cases did not make it clear.) _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jane
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 3227
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
lol - lone ranger! I read of such a case where the juror was replaced. _________________ "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|