This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
As a juror you don't have to listen to any of the evidence, at all. You can vote however you want. If you don't like what the guy is wearing or how he looks, you can vote guilty. Other jurors can try to sway you but if you are convinced either way, you have the duty and responsibility to vote that way.
Oof. Yeah...I think we have all had a similar moment of sorts. I know I have put my foot in my mouth like that. I have also told the random stranger on the phone at the end of the call "love ya" as a reflexive thing I say when talking to my significant other. That is awkward...too. lol
Now imagine how the reporter felt who had ample time to prepare for an interview with Avery.
Don't feel too badly I consistently slip up and ask in custody clients how they're doing.
Well, in theory at least this isn't entirely accurate. A jury has an affirmative duty to listen to the evidence and apply the law. If a juror blatantly disregards this duty (e.g. Falls asleep, stated in voir dire he won't, etc) that would be grounds for the juror being struck for cause. Of course, once a juror goes to deliberate we will never know his motive unless he says it and other jurors rat him out.
Obviously the filmmaker doesn't believe this guy did it. But that overarching bias doesn't necessarily mean that the account is being portrayed with some neutrality.
That's exactly how. I think every reporter should start every interview that way, if only for shtick purposes.
70% of media interviews start with some variation of "Tell us why you're here today." That's what makes Yandek a unique and original swerve.
What should happen and what happens in practice are two entirely different things sometimes.
1. I had thought it was said in episode 2 or so that the money paid would've come from the county. Which obviously would bankrupt the county and to me that gave them even more reason to do away with SA. He would've owned them all. 4. Don't forget the pallet on the hood.
The "hidden" car screamed plant louder than the car key. Dude has a car crushing machine on his property but throws some random stuff on top to hide it? Ok. They may as well have left the flashers on.
If the charge is murder, and the prosecution argues that he murdered her with a gun, but a juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered her with a knife, the juror should find him guilty of murder. The charge isn't that he did something in a specific way, but just that he did the thing he's charged with.
Thanks for helping me better understand this aspect of jury deliberations. Not sure I agree or disagree with it...but it is good to have some clarity as to what is permitted and what is not.
Juries can also practice "jury nullification" where they concede that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged but let them off anyway. I think it's been exercised in situations where someone was raped and then killed their attacker, or maybe someone's child was molested and killed and they killed the guy who did it.
Im due in about 6 months and im really looking forward to it. I hope i get a really long case i can deadlock and drag out for as long as possible like that Paulie Shore movie.
just catching up on this. Except they called the lab and the lab said they don't do this.
Jury duty
Glad to see the gravity of this case really had an effect on you.
This is how I thought it would/should be. That's why it made me a bit angry that the prosecution not only put the burden of proof on the defense that SA didn't do, but to prove that the police were in fact the killers. I believe in the closing arguments "the prize" said something to the effect of, "if you believe the defense, then you have to take the next step and say that the police killed Teresa." Shouldn't they only have to show that he's not guilty of the thing he's charged with?
Speaking of the key...I heard a good point mentioned by Bill Simmons of all people. What woman carries a single car key and nothing else on the chain? Did Avery allegedly detach all her extra keys/keychains/store cards and throw those away never to be found, so that he could keep her key to eventually get rid of the car that he also allegedly removed the battery from?1. I had thought it was said in episode 2 or so that the money paid would've come from the county. Which obviously would bankrupt the county and to me that gave them even more reason to do away with SA. He would've owned them all.4. Don't forget the pallet on the hood.
Id have to look again, but I thought the lanyard appeared to be detachable?Speaking of the key...I heard a good point mentioned by Bill Simmons of all people. What woman carries a single car key and nothing else on the chain? Did Avery allegedly detach all her extra keys/keychains/store cards and throw those away never to be found, so that he could keep her key to eventually get rid of the car that he also allegedly removed the battery from?1. I had thought it was said in episode 2 or so that the money paid would've come from the county. Which obviously would bankrupt the county and to me that gave them even more reason to do away with SA. He would've owned them all.4. Don't forget the pallet on the hood.
Right, but what was the thought process there? That Teresa detached her own car key before using her car on the day she was killed, and the rest of her keys were burned with the rest of her belongings? Seems like a strange thing to do. So if not that, why would Avery detach her car key and get rid of the rest of the keys but keep a key to a car that he (allegedly) couldn't move off his lot unless he was going to reinstall the battery?Id have to look again, but I thought the lanyard appeared to be detachable?Speaking of the key...I heard a good point mentioned by Bill Simmons of all people. What woman carries a single car key and nothing else on the chain? Did Avery allegedly detach all her extra keys/keychains/store cards and throw those away never to be found, so that he could keep her key to eventually get rid of the car that he also allegedly removed the battery from?1. I had thought it was said in episode 2 or so that the money paid would've come from the county. Which obviously would bankrupt the county and to me that gave them even more reason to do away with SA. He would've owned them all.4. Don't forget the pallet on the hood.
The key had a "clip/link" that would connect to all her other keys and such. My wife and I do this. I have my office/house/parents house key all on one "loop" with a link to connect it to a car key for whichever of our two vehicles I'm taking that day. Did they ever find all of her other keys that would be other other end of that link?Speaking of the key...I heard a good point mentioned by Bill Simmons of all people. What woman carries a single car key and nothing else on the chain? Did Avery allegedly detach all her extra keys/keychains/store cards and throw those away never to be found, so that he could keep her key to eventually get rid of the car that he also allegedly removed the battery from?1. I had thought it was said in episode 2 or so that the money paid would've come from the county. Which obviously would bankrupt the county and to me that gave them even more reason to do away with SA. He would've owned them all.4. Don't forget the pallet on the hood.
Not to mention Avery apparently scrubbed 7 years worth of her DNA off of the key but left his on it. All very shady.Right, but what was the thought process there? That Teresa detached her own car key before using her car on the day she was killed, and the rest of her keys were burned with the rest of her belongings? Seems like a strange thing to do. So if not that, why would Avery detach her car key and get rid of the rest of the keys but keep a key to a car that he (allegedly) couldn't move off his lot unless he was going to reinstall the battery?Id have to look again, but I thought the lanyard appeared to be detachable?Speaking of the key...I heard a good point mentioned by Bill Simmons of all people. What woman carries a single car key and nothing else on the chain? Did Avery allegedly detach all her extra keys/keychains/store cards and throw those away never to be found, so that he could keep her key to eventually get rid of the car that he also allegedly removed the battery from?1. I had thought it was said in episode 2 or so that the money paid would've come from the county. Which obviously would bankrupt the county and to me that gave them even more reason to do away with SA. He would've owned them all.4. Don't forget the pallet on the hood.
This is somewhat true. Jury nullification is a "real" thing. However, at least in my jurisdiction, the judge will read instructions and conduct a voir dire of the jury panel to try to ensure that the sitting jurors simply apply the facts to the applicable law. Attorneys are strictly forbidden from arguing for nullification (so, alas, I'll never get to say "now imagine she's white" in my closing) and it's possible the verdict could be set aside if it ever is affirmed that a jury nullified.
First part, if true, is huge. I couldn't get your link for the Ken Kratz stuff to work.
Its been posted in this thread a few times already. Which of the "troubling evidence" changes the story?
