Tonight someone, Jonathan Allen or the other guy, on fwiw MSNBC said
that the fact that the jury in the Georgia murder case (the wife and
son) convicted in less than 4 hours on a case that lasted 2, or was it 6
weeks, was proof they went into the jury room with their minds made up.
And that that was a violation of the judge's instructions, and therefore
though the verdict may have been accurate, it was not in accord with the
law.

It was because they didn't like him and they didnt' believe him.

I've heard this before, that you're not supposed to even *start* making
up your mind until all the evidence is in. But that seems impossible, especially with 6 weeks of testimony. It's rare I go 5 minutes without reaching a decision about some parts of what someone has said. It's
automatic. If there's a flaw in what I hear, I notice it right away.
And it's easier to have in mind the exact words someone has said when he
said them only a few minutes ago. AFter 6 weeks, I wouldn't be sure I
recalled anything correctly.

And if they don't believe him, aiui there goes his whole defense. (If
they don't believe him because they don't like him, that's would be a
problem. But since he's lied a lot in this case, and earlier implicitly
when he was embezzleing, that's enough reason to not believe someone
whether you like him or not.)

So A) Is it true that violating the judge's instructions like here is an example of reaching a verdict not within the law? Are the judge's instructions the same as law?
B) How can one possibly avoid it? Or even the impression of it: They
could have stayed in the jury room an extra day or two to fool
onlookers, but these days someone would probably squeal.


I also heard they couldn't get a death penalty become jurors wouldn't
vote for it. I don't see how anyone would. There is always the
possibillity of an itinerant farmhand who got into a fight with them.
And since there was no life insurance to collect, who kills his family
to distract others from his financial problems?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 21:22:33 -0800, micky wrote:

I also heard they couldn't get a death penalty become jurors wouldn't
vote for it.

Don't they weed out jurors who don't believe in the death penalty ?

I wonder what would happen if a juror answered truthfully before a case
that they believed in the death penalty, but halfway through (maybe
thanks to a persuasive fellow juror) they decided they were opposed to
it ?

And if you have to stack the jury deck, so to speak, is it justice, or
just a pantomime without the possibility of an encore ?

If a criminal gets themselves killed while threatening the safety of the public, then not a tear would I shed, so I'm not too much of a bleeding
heart liberal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:gsh50it763kvk1g1cdv6bmsi6a3bg3e54g@4ax.com...

Tonight someone, Jonathan Allen or the other guy, on fwiw MSNBC said
that the fact that the jury in the Georgia murder case (the wife and
son) convicted in less than 4 hours on a case that lasted 2, or was it 6 >weeks, was proof they went into the jury room with their minds made up.
And that that was a violation of the judge's instructions, and therefore >though the verdict may have been accurate, it was not in accord with the
law.

I think it was actually less than three hours and it was SC not Georgia.
The fact that they "only" took three hours to deliberate is hardly proof
they had their minds made up when they entered the jury room or that they violated the judge's instructions. Three hours is actually a long time, if
you think about it, and plenty of time for the jury to discuss the case, in
my view. For perspective, the OJ jury, which was deliberating a case that
had gone on for much longer and was arguably more complex, only deliberated four hours. Some cases are straightforward, with few controversial elements (not saying the OJ case was this - it wasn't) - and this case largely hinged
on the credibility of the witness. Two or three hours was plenty of time to discuss this.
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 21:22:33 -0800, micky wrote:

I also heard they couldn't get a death penalty become jurors wouldn't
vote for it.

Don't they weed out jurors who don't believe in the death penalty ?

I wonder what would happen if a juror answered truthfully before a case
that they believed in the death penalty, but halfway through (maybe
thanks to a persuasive fellow juror) they decided they were opposed to
it ?

So be it. Or the juror might well decide that death could be merited
in some cases but not this one.

This all seems like a tempest in a teapot, to give talking heads
something to blather about, or for his lawyers to try to use for a
hail mary appeal. . With all of the location evidence and the
defendant's complete lack of credibility, I don't find it surprising
that the jury decided quickly.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to the story I just read, the death penalty was not an option
for the jury. The prosecutors had removed the death penalty from the
charge in December.



On 3/3/2023 9:22 PM, micky wrote:

Tonight someone, Jonathan Allen or the other guy, on fwiw MSNBC said
that the fact that the jury in the Georgia murder case (the wife and
son) convicted in less than 4 hours on a case that lasted 2, or was it 6 weeks, was proof they went into the jury room with their minds made up.
And that that was a violation of the judge's instructions, and therefore though the verdict may have been accurate, it was not in accord with the
law.

It was because they didn't like him and they didnt' believe him.

I've heard this before, that you're not supposed to even *start* making
up your mind until all the evidence is in. But that seems impossible, especially with 6 weeks of testimony. It's rare I go 5 minutes without reaching a decision about some parts of what someone has said. It's automatic. If there's a flaw in what I hear, I notice it right away.
And it's easier to have in mind the exact words someone has said when he
said them only a few minutes ago. AFter 6 weeks, I wouldn't be sure I recalled anything correctly.

And if they don't believe him, aiui there goes his whole defense. (If
they don't believe him because they don't like him, that's would be a problem. But since he's lied a lot in this case, and earlier implicitly
when he was embezzleing, that's enough reason to not believe someone
whether you like him or not.)

So A) Is it true that violating the judge's instructions like here is an example of reaching a verdict not within the law? Are the judge's instructions the same as law?
B) How can one possibly avoid it? Or even the impression of it: They could have stayed in the jury room an extra day or two to fool
onlookers, but these days someone would probably squeal.

I also heard they couldn't get a death penalty become jurors wouldn't
vote for it. I don't see how anyone would. There is always the
possibillity of an itinerant farmhand who got into a fight with them.
And since there was no life insurance to collect, who kills his family
to distract others from his financial problems?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)