I have a question

Jason'swife · July 2011

When they read the verdicts and said "so say we all" after words, does that mean they all agreed? Or is it just something they say?

You're telling me not one person on that jury called BS?

Britt71884 · July 2011

I think that they all have to agree with the verdict. If one person didn't, they would be a hung jury and they'd have a re-trial.. such BS...

joanithegreat · July 2011

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that all the jurors must agree on the verdict, it's not a majority rules thing. If there was even one person that voted guilty and refused to change their vote then it would have been a hung jury.

ASmallWonder · July 2011

Britt71884:
I think that they all have to agree with the verdict. If one person didn't, they would be a hung jury and they'd have a re-trial.. such BS...

Exactly. I think that's a huge part of what people are having trouble with. That NO ONE on that jury thought she was guilty. Zero. That's amazing to me.

TotallyNot_Isha · July 2011

When you google "so say we all," you come up with an oddly large number of Battlestar Gallactica websites lol. I can't tell for sure, but I'm pretty sure in murder cases, it has to be in total agreement, right?

I'm sure everyone on the jury feels the way we all do--that she did it. But they can't decide their verdict on feelings. If the evidence wasn't convincing enough, or there simply wasn't enough, then that's what their decision should be based on.

Jason'swife · July 2011

Yeah, that sounds right. I couldn't remember if it had to be 100% agreement for a not guilty verdict, or if you could have a dissenter or two.

TotallyNot_Isha · July 2011

elmoali:

Britt71884:
I think that they all have to agree with the verdict. If one person didn't, they would be a hung jury and they'd have a re-trial.. such BS...

Exactly. I think that's a huge part of what people are having trouble with. That NO ONE on that jury thought she was guilty. Zero. That's amazing to me.

Assuming this is so off-base. It's not that they don't think she was guilty. It's that she wasn't PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence given. I'm sure when they interview that jury, that is exactly what they will say.

RachelG83 · July 2011

TotallyNot_Isha:
elmoali:

Britt71884:
I think that they all have to agree with the verdict. If one person didn't, they would be a hung jury and they'd have a re-trial.. such BS...

Exactly. I think that's a huge part of what people are having trouble with. That NO ONE on that jury thought she was guilty. Zero. That's amazing to me.

Assuming this is so off-base. It's not that they don't think she was guilty. It's that she wasn't PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence given. I'm sure when they interview that jury, that is exactly what they will say.

Which is why I'd never be put on that jury LOL She can get away with murder - I can get away with throwing a wrench in to get retrial until someone figures out how to get it right.

ASmallWonder · July 2011

TotallyNot_Isha:
elmoali:

Britt71884:
I think that they all have to agree with the verdict. If one person didn't, they would be a hung jury and they'd have a re-trial.. such BS...

Exactly. I think that's a huge part of what people are having trouble with. That NO ONE on that jury thought she was guilty. Zero. That's amazing to me.

Assuming this is so off-base. It's not that they don't think she was guilty. It's that she wasn't PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence given. I'm sure when they interview that jury, that is exactly what they will say.

No, I get that. I just mean that I'm surprised one person on that jury didn't "vote" heart over head. I know that's not the way they're supposed to and maybe I just don't have a lot of faith in people following directions but I guess I expected at least one person would be so moved by the emotions of the case that they'd put their foot down and say guilty.

ludicrous · July 2011

kdodge423:
elmoali:

Britt71884:
I think that they all have to agree with the verdict. If one person didn't, they would be a hung jury and they'd have a re-trial.. such BS...

Exactly. I think that's a huge part of what people are having trouble with. That NO ONE on that jury thought she was guilty. Zero. That's amazing to me.

The jury's job is to evaluate the evidence and determine guilt. Much of the evidence was circumstantial, which cannot be used. Therer really wasn't any hard proof as far as I could tell. I don't doubt that she did it or was involved, but gut instincts and the court of public opinion is not how our judicial system works. The prosecution failed to prove her guilt. Blame them, not the jurors.

This, and what Isha said.

mammcg88 · July 2011

And now the jury has decided not to speak to the press. I'm sure they're expecting a rain of hell fire.

Jason'swife · July 2011

elmoali:
I expected at least one person would be so moved by the emotions of the case that they'd put their foot down and say guilty.

Exactly.

LLS1215 · July 2011

They said at one point that the decision did not have to be unanimous for them to reach a verdict. I think when they said so say we all they meant that that was the decision that they had to agree on because of majority.

Want a personalized experience?

I have a question

Re: I have a question

Choose Another Board

Search Boards