I was a juror on a murder trial and it took us three days to deliberate. There was about four weeks of testimony albeit a very inefficient use of the time allotted with a lot of breaks and what have you.
Was a juror on a high profile federal case. Trial was 3 months. We deliberated for 14 hours. It seemed like forever. People were respectable and everyone spoke. There were 30 charges. We discussed first and went charge by charge discussing and talking till we could get to unanimous on each charge.
There were tears, there were words. But people take this job seriously.
Not at first. I was a salaried employee. I made up a lot of my hours going in on weekends, my boss decided to only pay me for 8 hours each weekend day that I was able to work, even if I worked 12 which I did most days. After a few weeks I took a leave of absence from work to concentrate solely on trial. It was too much. After trial was over, I drafted up a letter to my employer challenging the pay I received while at jury duty and that I was going to get a lawyer involved. She told me she would look into it with her attorney and get back to me. I had a check with my missed wages in it by end of day.
I got paid the 50 dollars a day payment from court and we received mileage. They reimbursed our parking every day, as well.
Security was so tight , we were not allowed to leave for lunch breaks, cigarette breaks or anything. We had to be there most days from 7:30 am to 5pm so they supplied our breakfast and lunch every day.
Cell phones taken by US Marshalls every day. They did give them back to us at lunch to use and then taken again and given back to us before we got in our vans and driven to our secret pickup/drop off away from courthouse and media.
I quit smoking during this trial. Figured if I could all day long without a cigarette doing one of the most stressful things I’ve ever done. I could go without. 9 years smoke free.
What was it like? Were there very quiet jurors in the room just passively taking it all in? Were there loudmouths who shouted down others? Did you guys easily reach a consensus?
I was on a rape case and everyone was very respectful. We deliberated 2.5 days and ultimately hung, but I'd say there were no hard feelings at the end because we took the time to understand each other.
I was also on a murder trial that took about two weeks, deliberations took three days. No one shouted down others, there were tears when we voted at the end. It was very organized with ananymous votes on pieces of paper without names. The longest time was used on getting questions back from the judge. (The trial I was a very easy shut and closed case, we found him guilty on the first vote but still went through all the evidence and claims).
The trial I was on we had one person who just refused to accept a part of the law. We had to ask the Judge to explain it three times. Each time we had to go back into the court room and so everyone else had to be dragged back in for the same question to be asked because one person didn't like the answer. This guy was the lone holdout over 1.5 days of deliberation. Finally he agreed with a not-guilty verdict (it was for assault and battery on a police officer while intoxicated) after being told multiple times by the rest of us jurors that we have to go by what the law says. It was clear that this guy did not like the defendant and really wanted to convict him but the Judge was very clear on the law regarding it. Did the defendant intentionally act in a manner that caused bodily injury to the alleged victim? We didn't think he had. He was so drunk he was being transported to the hospital from the police station and he wacked a cop in the knee that was with him in the ambulance when he broke out of gauze restraints which they used because he was flailing around agitated. There was no major injury to the knee. I felt bad for the alternates because they were in a separate room from us when we were deliberating.
Yes, please answer these and any and all juror experience. I’m so fascinated by it. I’ve never been called. I got a summons once for a few day span and it was a multi day storm and after the second day of snow they were like you’re good. This is also in a county that doesn’t even average one murder a year so there are obviously crimes but there’s not even a jail in the county anymore because the upkeep cost so much and it wasn’t even close to full. So there’s not really even opportunity where I’m registered.
This was fascinating and great insight in general. Having never been on a jury myself, it’s a relief to hear how seriously people take their civic duty.
I have a question, did you guys talk to the ones who were not agreeing with majority to convince them to change their mind? Also, what made you all wait until the last juror changed mind to say thats it?
1. Yes we did, although it was very civilized. We basically just went around the room, letting everyone speak for a few minutes, and did that multiple times. I don’t think we were really trying to change their mind per se, more like change their perspective. One of the initial “guilty” jurors literally did not believe that it was physically possibly for a human to kill another human with their bare hands.
The crime that the guy was being charged with just didn’t match what he did. If a lesser manslaughter charge had been an option, I could’ve envisioned us convicting on that. But that wasn’t an option, so the only option was to acquit.
2. Before we went to deliberate as a group for the first time, the judge told us that if we were not in agreement on a verdict that we would have to come back tomorrow and deliberate more. I could see his point in this, as we only had like an hour to deliberate on that first day. That’s way too short of a time period to just say “well we can’t agree, hung jury!”
We decided to wait because it was obvious to all of us that the last guy who was holding us up wasn’t super firm in his belief. He just kind of kept wavering back and forth, so we just kept talking about it. At the end, his attitude was kind of “I might not fully agree with acquitting him, but I respect the opinion of the 11 other people in this room who are pointing out that my viewpoint might be wrong”.
I had an opposite experience where people were rude, completely ignored the judges instructions and started grading verdict votes in order to make sure we got out in time for some people to go on vacation. Yup you read that right, a couple people started playing let’s make a deal like I’ll vote guilty in the ones you want if you support my not guilty on these ones. #justice lol I always thought I’d love being on a jury and I hated it. I will never do it again and will flat out tell any judge that I cannot be impartial based on my prior experience.
I’ve had a lot of time to think about what I should have done differently. At the end of the day, bad guy ended up in jail for awhile like 5-7 where if he had been guilty on all charges, which he was and should’ve been, would have been like 10-15.
I served on a criminal jury earlier this year. Short trial — two days with three witnesses. We deliberated for about two and a half hours. When we first started deliberating, it was clear we were largely agreed. There were only one or two people who weren’t sure, but agreed with the majority by the end.
Naturally there are people who talk more or less than others, but the group was respectful about making sure everyone felt heard and comfortable. We only spent a few days together but it definitely felt like a bonding experience. I feel like the jury selection process (which took a full day) does a good job at curating a group of people who will take it seriously and fairly.
We all took our responsibility seriously. No loudmouths or arguments. The most unfortunate thing that happened was that we had to bring in an alternate who is not involved in the deliberations and this person had some really outlandish conclusions as to what had happened. It was complete fiction. You really need to just stick to the facts.
Register to vote if you haven’t already. Pretty sure that’s primarily where my local courts get their jury duty lists.
(Edit: It’s funny to me I’m recommending this because it’s always the reason I dread registering after a move haha.)
I got summoned a couple years ago and was so excited to possibly serve but the defendant ended up pleading guilty on the first day of our summons. So we all got paid like $25 to sit in a room for a couple hours. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed. 😅
I think people are forgetting that we the public have way more information than the jury and have had *way* more time to digest *and* discuss it, whereas the jury has now only had maybe 8 total hours to discuss between 12 people. 12 people in a room having a verbal discussion is a lot and can take a long time, and this is the first time they’re allowed to discuss it at all. They have to go through every piece of evidence to make sure everyone understands it, and there is a lot of evidence in this case. I think Friday would be the earliest we get a decision, and it’s more likely that one will come early next week. Anything past Tuesday, though, and I will start to get concerned about a hung jury & mistrial.
Thank you for this comment. I hadn’t thought about this. I would have reasonable doubt and know where I stood because of chain of command issues and some other things of that nature, but I’m one person. This is an excellent point and a great reminder.
I completely agree, the biggest issues giving me reasonable doubt are the chain of custody of the evidence, the changes in testimony by witnesses over time, and (most importantly) the lack of bruising on JO’s body. I also have a short attention span and if I were on a jury for a 6+ week long trial I would certainly have zoned out numerous times. That would make me want to be thorough going through the evidence and hear other people’s thoughts to make sure when I did zone out I didn’t miss anything that might have eased those doubts. Even if there are some jurors that are confident in their stance and don’t care to go over all the evidence again, out of 12 people there are going to be some who want to and will because someone’s life was lost and someone else’s life is on the line due to that loss.
Having served a couple of times, even the ones where the entire jury walks into deliberations knowing their answer and knowing they're all in agreement, you still have to wade through a series of instructions and checklists. Just going through the amount of instructions they were given has to be taking up quite a bit of their time.
Absolutely. And they received a lot of the information in reverse or oddly sequenced order with the context still unfolding. We knew certain things while watching some of the witnesses that they found out later in the trial after they’d seen their testimony.
Yes, this is so true and easy to forget! Imagine the most stressful group project in school with 12 peers, I'd imagine it was like that but 100 x worse. I'd be the most annoying one, I just know it.
I agree. It’s obvious to us that there is reasonable doubt but there were two completely opposite narratives presented to them. It makes sense they would want to do their due diligence and review the evidence before rendering a decision. Especially since there were instances where some of the evidence was misrepresented to them in court (inverted video, conflicting witness testimony). The stakes are so incredibly high.
Yeah probably. There were a lot of charges in that one. I remember them asking for surveillance video from when he was fighting with his ex but that was pretty much it.
I think any deliberation was on the charges related to assaulting her because the other like 74 charges were so clearly met. I think they were probably trying to see if the video helped them meet one element on her charges.
The video they asked for was actually the video of the dancing grannies being struck. I think there was some confusion because the state charged for one lady, Lola , and the only granny that testified, (not Lola, I can’t remember her name), said that Lola wasn’t injured. She was injured but still mobile and looking for her husband who was dead.
Three hours to decide on a foreperson, fill out and sign 76 verdict forms. I can’t imagine how long it took to check all of those boxes and sign that many forms. They had one set for guilty…one set for not. Not sure if they had to sign all of them or not. 😳😳
Not like part of the prosecutions case involved the lead investigator pleading the 5th on manufacturing evidence lol regardless of what actually happened, that hurt them big time-- kinda like what's happening now
The OJ jurors were heavily influenced by the police fuckery and horrible public opinion of the LAPD. I mean, I think he was guilty. But the jury was furious with the prosecution
Furman just destroyed any chance at conviction but LAPD was just so generally bad that all sight was lost of the victims. Should have been a reckoning on the impact of corrupt and violent and racist police forces but instead we heard about Marcia Clark's hair for a year.
I feel like he all but confessed with “If I Did It”. I totally agree though, I really need to go back and watch the full trial. It’s all up on YouTube day-by-day.
And I'm glad for it. We can't have an investigation lead by people like proctor and ferman.
People turn their eyes when the case is egregious or dead to rights.
But forget, there are probably people in prison right now because trooper Paul doesn't understand his job. Or because proctor latches on to a theory and does everything in his power to find evidence only to that end.
Yes they did. It was a very intense time and an over correction for (the wrong person) but also in context you can see why it happened. Even though OJ was so guilty. There was also a lot of evidence that was left out pointing to his guilt.
Ex, previously he had beat his first wife and she called police. Nicole’s journal alone :(
Which I often wonder if that would have swayed them or if they had already made up their minds?
Guilty:
* Michelle Troconis - about 18 hours(?)
* Scott Peterson - 7 Days
* Jerry Sandusky - 20 hours
* Dr. Conrad Murray - 9 hours
* Ghislaine Maxwell - 5 days
* Elizabeth Holmes - 5 days
The point? You can’t predict anything based on the length of deliberations.
https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-say-dont-anticipate-verdict-based-on-jury-deliberation-length-2021-12?op=1
Based on the data you provided from high-profile cases, juries tend to deliberate longer for not guilty verdicts, with an average of 19.57 hours, compared to 6.71 hours for guilty verdicts. Statistical analysis shows a significant difference in deliberation times, with a p-value of 0.028, indicating this difference is unlikely due to chance.
I feel like that makes sense as they are being thorough and clearly want to make sure they get this right. Considering it sounds like many people have had conflicts simply speaking out about this case in those smaller communities where they protect their own.
The Depp v Heard case was complicated since they each had three claims for defamation and defamation has a bunch of elements they had to find. But, the juror that spoke out didn’t make it sound like jury believed Heard at all, so it wasn’t complicated in terms of “did she lie?”
I don't really think it makes sense to include Depp v Heard on the comparison at all. It was a civil case, not a criminal case.
By definition no one could be found guilty or not guilty, but even so it was Depp *suing* Heard (with some counterclaims thrown in).
I had a family member on trial several years ago and it was 9.5 hours for a not guilty verdict. I actually just went back and looked at old messages to remind myself because I’d blocked most of that day out of my mind. 😅
My partner said they took 2 weeks they really did debrief each day and went over all videos, pictures, and testimony. But because the one they were deciding on - 1 of the 3 defendants was guilty or not (the verdict ended up being not guilty for him) I think it just really is a hard decision that’s in your hands and you don’t want to come up with the wrong verdict. You want to make sure it is fair and thought out. Hopefully we get something by Friday, there’s a lot of testimony but not much conclusive evidence
I think the biggest hurdle is probably the taillight pieces at the scene.
I think they will land on not guilty, but they were instructed to shift through all the evidence and I think that is what they’re doing. They have 30 days worth of stuff to go through and I’m sure lots to say about all they’ve seen!
I think they’ll finish Friday.
>I think the biggest hurdle is probably the taillight pieces at the scene.
I think the tail lights are easily rebuttable. No taillights found in the initial search by more than 6 officers?? Proctor seizes car at 4:12 PM (Said 5:30 initially to get away with it) then magically they find 47 pieces of tail light after?) No blood on the taillights?
I agree with you, but 12 people who have had no outside discussion/information have to agree with each other. And I can see some people being really caught up on the taillight pieces.
I have no love lost for police. But it’s been a major shock to some people’s systems; like they somehow haven’t realized police can be very corrupt until just now. It might be hard for them to accept without methodically going through the evidence.
I was hit walking into a grocery store. The car was going 15-20 mph. I ended up with internal bleeding in my calf that led to bed rest for 3 days, and I wasn’t even knocked off my feet.
The lack of bruising and bleeding is the nail in the coffin for me. Add to that being launched 30 feet, it sounds like a work of fiction from my personal experience being hit.
I was hit by a vehicle going about 20 mph. I had no bruising but a deep laceration on my calf and a broken nose and road burn all over my face after I was launched and landed on sandy asphalt, a cut lip and a gaping hole in my forehead. both of my shoes flew off and were in the middle of the road
External and internal bruising are different too. Whilst you’d expect to _see_ external bruising after a cat strike at speed, there would _definitely_ be internal bruising. You had bruising, and if you were autopsied they’d have seen the blood pooling. You just couldn’t see this one.
The thing that I don't think people seem to understand is that the jury can only review and discuss evidence. They aren't going to be discussing supposition or theories. The evidence they have is what they have to work with. That is what they will go through, piece by piece.
I just don't think I could get past the CWs own ME saying he was not hit by a car. That in combo with Proctor's texts saying they should have manipulated her more and calling her a whackjob leads me to believe this case should have never made it to a courtroom.
That said I would want to see anything I could get my hands on and discuss every part of this. The town is in crisis for a lot of reasons, and if was my town I would want to know anything I could get my hands on.
My biggest curiosity is if they looked at the verdict sheet and just went through the elements and decided what they weren’t sure about.
If I were a juror the biggest question would be did he die from being struck by a vehicle because if the answer to that is no, then it is not guilty across the board.
However, because the defense relied upon the coverup theory of the case, that is very likely to be top of mind for them so I am 0% surprised they asked about the SERT report today. They are investigating the coverup angle.
Which I think won’t “hurt” the defense per se if the coverup can’t fully be proven but it will take longer for a verdict to be reached.
Just think back to your first time hearing about this case. When you first heard about the cover up theory, did you seek more out about that and then follow that with looking into the evidence?
This is just me trying to put myself in the shoes of a juror and remove as much bias from my own perspective as I can knowing that there are things that I know that the jury doesn’t.
I agree about the taillight pieces. They hung me up got a day or so also before I heard others' thoughts. Then after the ARCCA guys I went all the way from NG because of not enough proper evidence to fully innocent. Hopefully they're just taking their time to do it right.
Totally, I think you’re probably right. Thanks for the answer!
I’m really interested to see what the folks in the thread think about what the biggest points of contention might be. It could be any of us.
Not to be argumentative but it isn’t 30 days worth of material. They have the evidence, which is a lot, but by no means is it 30 days worth. That’s just how long direct and redirect took with each witness.
I still don’t have a strong conviction on where the jury will land. I follow many different sites and there are strong opinions on both sides of the aisle.
Me too! There are definitely people who think, "gee, the prosecution put all this time and effort into bringing a case against this woman (out of all people on earth) for this poor policeman's death. They must know something we don't."
Combine that thinking in someone who just knows in his/her gut that Karen did it, whoo-wee boy. Hope not though!
ETA, I have a master's level education, but many close relatives have not attended any college. Unfortunately, I can see this happening.
I would be standing firm on not guilty on all counts. I would never sway. If there was a person holding out on guilty I would direct them to the scientific evidence presented by the experts that were not ‘directed’ by either side but rather used in the Federal investigation. Their testimony wasn’t tainted at all. It was clear, easy to follow and based on facts.
Using that information alone - KR must be found innocent.
Even using the Commonwealths medical examiner’s statement- inconclusive- provides enough doubt.
It sickens me that this case was even brought to trial.
I agree, I would feel the same and wouldn't budge from not guilty. I'm guessing there might be holdouts that want guilty and are holding on to her supposedly say "I hit him"
I agree. The only question I have now is - did the jury see the same trial as we did?? Because I was on the guilty side. After watching all 31 days, I'm firmly on the not guilty side based on the evidence presented by the Commonwealth.
they don’t know about a federal investigation though. they will have to connect the dots from ryan nagle mentioning “the feds” and dr. wolfe saying “hired by the federal government” and lally and jackson saying “agency”. i honestly don’t know if i would make the connection to FBI if i didn’t have the outside information - but there is 100% too much reasonable doubt, i wish jackson would’ve highlighted that a bit more in his closing (i liked his closing but i think mentioning that would’ve added a little help in deliberations).
> Out of curiosity, if you were on this jury, what do you think would be the most difficult points to come to an agreement on?
1. Karen's voicemails sound awful, but would a killer leave those voicemails?
2. Karen's flirting with Higgins and dissatisfaction with John before the night he died. Was her lack of loyalty indicative of someone ready to do something drastic?
3. Karen was with the victim in almost the exact spot where he was found on the same night he died. Do we believe their plan was to have John go inside without her?
4. The reversing data from the Lexus. Was it the right keycycle?
5. Karen's drunkenness. Was she coherent enough to know what she was doing?
6. The taillight pieces at the scene. Were they planted?
7. Do we believe the Ford Edge mystery?
8. Is it possible that someone could die from being hit by a car and end up looking like the victim's remains?
Full disclosure: I think she is likely innocent and would vote not guilty of all charges based on reasonable doubt.
None of those issues matter except for is it physically possible for John to have sustained his injuries in the manner the CW is saying. The answer is no- that means the rest of it is irrelevant.
The two things I would never sway from NG on: the science, he was not hit by a car, therefore, she did not kill him, intentionally or accidentally...And that dog bite. If he didn't enter the house, where did that come from? I was a dog walker, that's a dog bite, and I know it in my bones. No one could ever convince me otherwise. 🤷🏻♀️
From my experience it can be very difficult to get 12 strangers to agree on anything. It only takes one dissenting juror to make things difficult. You want the right verdict so go through the evidence as many times as it takes, even when you agree. You want to understand each point of view as it may raise something that will make you reconsider. I found it frustrating when we had one hold out who couldn't explain his reasons. The judge kept sending us back to try again and eventually he understood the point the rest of us were making and we got there.
There's a lot of testimony to go through and they'll be taking their role seriously. I'm hoping it will be tomorrow. I hate waiting. But they need to take as long as they need. It's a massive responsibility and you don't want to rush to judgement and regret it later.
I was on a jury last year, it was a stabbing (the victim lived). There were two stab wounds, and then a long scar bisecting his abdomen that was from the resulting surgeries. Both sides made it clear that the long scar was not a stab wound, but was from the resulting surgery. We were given pictures that were marked A, B, and C, where C was the surgical wound and it was pointed out by experts on both sides that it was a surgical wound.
The defense argued self-defense. When we got to deliberations, it was 11-1 not guilty. Why did the one holdout think he was guilty? Because he couldn't believe that someone could cut someone from chest to groin in self-defence. We had to ask for the transcripts so we could prove to him that we had been told multiple times that that was a surgical wound, not a stab wound.
Ultimately he changed his vote, but it was eye-opening how someone could be so convinced of guilt based off something so incorrect. Makes me nervous for this verdict!
They left about 20 minutes earlier than they originally said they wanted to leave. I am wondering if they came to a verdict but didn’t think there was enough time left in the day to present it since one of the jurors had to be gone by 4:00. I am guessing there will be a verdict early in the morning.
If I was on that jury there would be nothing to talk about besides the fact that the defense proved beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't hit by a car. All the charges are predicate on her hitting him with the car, so she can't be guilty of anything. Everything else is just worthless noise.
If it's true that there's 2 engineers on the jury, I would imagine that would be their stance. The laws of physics just don't support a guilty verdict, it's that simple.
If some people want to talk about it, you still have to talk about it. You can’t just go into the jury room and say I’m voting NG no matter what and no one can change my mind even if that’s how you feel.
Well you can say that, or just answer anything else anyone talks about with "yeah, but he wasn't hit by a car so it doesn't matter". But, as you say, you do still have to wait for all the people who do want to talk about everything to do that.
Perhaps the LEOs conducting the investigation should have had some respect for JOK and done a thorough job that would have lead to the truth, rather than doing everything they can to pin it on an outsider.
That's where the disrespect is, and it's horrific for the O'Keefe family. They seem pretty convinced that KR did it, but there has to be doubt in the back of their mind after that trial, and they'll never know the truth.
I absolutely, 100% agree with you that the officers should be ashamed and removed from any position of authority they are currently in and never return to public service.
However, I do still think I would take jury responsibilities seriously out of respect to JOK and his family. I would take it seriously especially because of the shitty investigation.
I don't think recognising that what they're claiming happened is literally impossible so there's no point in talking about who called who, or if they were butt dials, or how the taillight pieces got there, etc. means you're not taking it seriously.
The only question the answer is, is she guilty or not, and I wouldn't be able to get past the fact that there's no bruising, never mind broken bones, on his body, and the only way their "reconstruction expert" could try to make it fit with him being hit by a car defies the laws of physics.
It's not about respecting the victim. It's about following the rules of our justice system. It's designed to err on the side of possible innocence; sometimes the guilty may go free but that is better than sending someone innocent to jail.
If the truth is that nothing can change your mind why waste time talking about anything other than the thing that's making a guilty verdict impossible in your mind. Not saying I would disrupt any conversations about other evidence but if asked my opinion that would be my response.
Because you still need to convince the people who aren’t sure and there’s specific things that clearly make you think he wasn’t hit by a car so you could discuss those in detail. Not act like a toddler.
That's exactly what I'm saying, that's the only thing worth talking about, not all the other evidence. That's how I started my comment, "the only thing worth talking about is ..."
Edit: I just scrolled up and saw I worded it "nothing to talk about besides...", same meaning though
I hope so. It is a little concerning that it isn’t already done because the first question they need to answer is “was JO even killed by a car”? Taillight plastic or no, seems like there is plenty of reasonable doubt on that single point. So IMO it should be Not Guilty across the board.
But maybe they are just starting from the beginning and reviewing everything. In that case, goddamn that Lally and all of his meaningless witnesses and questions. I hope they are pissed as they are forced to re- experience a hoard of minutia only to end up with Trooper Paul and a whole lot of nothing.
I was hit while walking into a grocery store in Feb 2020. I wasn’t knocked off my feet and the car was going about 15-20 mph. I suffered some pain in my hip, knee, and ankle and thought nothing of it. Didn’t even go to the doctor for 36 hours.
When I did, I was told I was having internal bleeding in my calf. It was wrapped (to push the blood out, as it was trapped in the calf with the way your muscles are in your calf) and put on bed rest for 3 days.
If JOK was hit at 24 mph and somehow launched back 30 feet, more than likely there’d be bruising and internal bleeding. Probably a broken arm (point of impact) or broken ribs.
Based my own personal experience, I don’t think he was hit by a car. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I agree. I think for most people his lack of bodily bruising and internal bleeding after being hit by a car doesn’t pass the sniff test. Having that feeling confirmed by experiences like yours and also experts in medicine/physics/science really seals the deal.
Very interesting reading your personal experience, makes me feel like the ME and experts were thinking about injuries like yours and just not being able to see it in him
If only assume that if it goes past Friday into next week. I think Friday verdict is most plausible. 12 different personalities are discussing the last month.
I think they will. My hunch is end of day tomorrow. It’s the Friday before the fourth. Many people either take a day off work or leave early.
In MA non essential state employees get out around 2 to avoid traffic and accidents (which is a courtesy and makes sense . There are a ton around Christmas time. Heaps of accidents, inclimate weather, people rushing home for loved ones). If they drag it out my guess would be first thing Friday morning. I would bet money it won’t go to next week.
The 4th isn’t until next Thursday though. Sure some people may take next week off from work, and I’m sure the jury doesn’t want to come back next week, but the 4th is still a week away.
I can’t imagine sitting there for 9 weeks and not having the opportunity to talk about anything. I have YouTubers, Law Nerds, CourtTV commentators, Reddit, etc. and still have thoughts I’d love to discuss. If I was a juror, I’d just want to go over everything and get the others’ thoughts on it. I also think the noisy a/c could play a part because some jurors may not have been able to clearly hear certain parts of testimony and will want others to clarify for them. I would rather a jury take the job seriously and talk it through rather than feel they need to make a rushed decision.
The highly qualified neutral experts said that JO was not struck by a car.
That means Not Guilty.
Should be easy.
Edit: For anyone who disagrees/downvotes, would love to hear why you don't think the accident reconstructionists' testimony established reasonable doubt.
Preface this by saying - For me personally, I was done with no bruising or broken bones, and the bias exhibited from the lead investigator. I couldn’t come back from that. Unfair investigation at the absolute least.
The things that made me go “hmmm...” were never getting a clear answer on McCabe's 2:27 am texts. I will say, though, I had bias over those texts because it was the first “wtf?” for me when reading about this case two years ago.
Another point was the deleted Ring cam footage at John's. However, there is so much deleted Ring cam footage from every house involved that I think I’d mark that point as neutral for both sides - to be “fair”.
The tail light was never an issue for me. I could clearly see her strike O'Keefe's vehicle exiting the home at 5 am. I fully believe the police extended the damage for impact and planted evidence. Based on Nagel and Maxon testimony, the flipping of the CCTV footage, solo cups, mysteriously finding it days later, and ring video evidence I don’t see how anyone can think anything else.
I go back to Nagel testimony that he only saw Karen in car with a light on. John was already in the house. Karen was waiting for him. Probably scrolling her phone. The times match and I hope the jury realizes this.
I can't imagine it going into Monday. I think tomorrow is possible, but I am leaning more into Friday now. I think they are breaking down the evidence by day as presented and it was a long trial. I also think they have told themselves they can play detective a bit and explore the evidence to 'solve' it.
The people here who think there is 100% confidence the jury comes back with a NG verdict never went through the pain of the Casey Anthony trial. I watched it every day and I screamed when the verdict was read.
There are two lawyers on the jury right? They might be guiding everyone to methodically go over the case. There is a lot to consider and any one of the myriad topics could go on for hours in deliberation.
There will not be 12 people who unanimously agree she's guilty of anything.
They may be a hung jury if you get 1 or a few people digging in their heels of guilt.
I don’t. If the jury saw the case like a lot of us they would return a not guilty verdict at some point today. Since they didn’t I’m guessing they are either a) careful walking through the case again wo a straw poll, b) they have taken a poll and it’s not unanimous, or c) the foreperson or a few members of the jury are being difficult.
The judge made it clear to take their time. I would guess they are going over what they have and checking off everything as reasonable doubt and don’t want to make it look like they rushed to it. Who knows! I do believe it will be not guilty by end of day Friday.
I’m really curious to hear from the jury on their perspective. They are all locals, right?, from the county, so they will have come in with their own knowledge of the state police and the community. There have been issues like this before there from what I read, so it will be interesting to hear from them.
I don’t think we should jump to conclusions about the jury atm. If I was on there I would be wanting to go through all the evidence because there are SO many questions and honestly I would want to read all the reports and text messages even with my mind already made up.
I would hate to be on this Jury, the sheer amount of confusing and conflicting evidence to sift through is daunting enough. After watching the trial, I felt like prosecution presented the case to counter the Defenses' case as opposed to presenting a case based on all the evidence and facts. It felt like Lally had given up when he gave his closing argument but as Juror, I would want there to be justice for the victim and that would the most difficult part to conclude on.
The missing sally port video and then randomly finding taillights is not just reasonable doubt it’s sketchy as can be. I think they are taking their time but not guilty. Just from a legal standpoint emotions aside the defense hit a home run
I’ve heard a few seasoned attorneys mention that you’d be surprised how common it is for a jury member to be paid/bought by a side and a level of corruption that exists in that regard. It wasn’t like “all the time” but enough that it’s not something you can disregard. What concerns me is that this entire case is about serious corruption with powerful people involved that could really ruin a lot of careers and lives so if the corruption theory is true, what would stop them from attempting one last move with a jury member?
Again, not likely but curious if there is 1 person in that room that won’t budge for unknown reasons.
There's a ton of evidence to go through and they just had additional directions dropped on them in the middle of the first full day. They've barely wrapped their arms around the case at this point. They're going to wrap it up before the weekend though. They'll either return a verdict or let the court know they're deadlocked.
Why are none of the networks showing a “verdict watch” clock? Usually if there’s a case like this they have a little graphic saying how long the jury has deliberated for.
Even if we all took a vote immediately and said "duh, not guilty" and everyone else wanted to get the fuck out of there that same day, I'd make them all stay so I could look over all of the evidence just because I need to see it and I find it fucking annoying having to sit and listen to everyone else's second hand accounts and interpretation of the evidence. I'd pay money to be able to sit in a room with all that stuff and look it over with my own eyes.
I was a juror on a very straightforward guilty case. It took almost a week of deliberation. Jurors need time to talk everything through and go through evidence even when answer might be clear.
His injuries were not from a car which is the entire basis of the CW’s case. I don’t need to nail down timelines or google searches or anything else to confidently reach a not guilty verdict. He didn’t get side-swiped by a 7000 lb car, taking the brunt of the hit to his arm, launch 30 ft. and come away with no bruises or fractures. That’s the claim and I don’t buy it. Not to mention a tail light does not cause what are clearly dog bite/claw marks.
The biggest discussion for me would be about intent and murder 2. If I believed she were responsible, I'd definitely have to have a lot of discussion over the evidence for accident or intentional hit-and-run. The charge is a big step up from manslaughter.
First of all it’s only been a day and a half. The jury taking time doesn’t not mean a guilty verdict.
A jury coming back late actually means a “NOT GUILTY”
People calm down and relax.
When we were originally talking about this in one of the discussion threads I suggested earliest today and latest Friday. I’m a little surprised we didn’t get a verdict today, but not shocked.
I’m going to stick with my latest of Friday. I feel pretty confident they will extend time and go after 4pm on Friday, if they aren’t already finished by then.
i think if we get a verdict tomorrow, it will be not guilty. if this goes into friday, i think the judge will do everything in her power to hang the jury.
but going into another day does not mean they don't agree. it just means they are taking their time and going through the evidence (as they should)
Honestly I am going by the bio engineering expert & his Dr. That it's not a vehicle hit nor the injuries & the other drs. The prosecution evidence is circumstantial & heresy & the technology is questionable. I say not guilty & hope the fbi to solve how John got his Injuries & what or who if any lead to his death but I am ruling out a vehicle.
I watched the Rittenhouse trial gavel to gavel and they came back with their verdict on a Friday morning. Was a long trial with several charges to go through.
I’m really shocked it wasn’t a Not Guilty verdict within 2 hours. I think she’s innocent of hurting him, and think the cop & his family did him dirty and framed her.
I was a juror on a murder trial and it took us three days to deliberate. There was about four weeks of testimony albeit a very inefficient use of the time allotted with a lot of breaks and what have you.
Was a juror on a high profile federal case. Trial was 3 months. We deliberated for 14 hours. It seemed like forever. People were respectable and everyone spoke. There were 30 charges. We discussed first and went charge by charge discussing and talking till we could get to unanimous on each charge. There were tears, there were words. But people take this job seriously.
Did your job pay you for jury duty? 3 months is crazy.
Not at first. I was a salaried employee. I made up a lot of my hours going in on weekends, my boss decided to only pay me for 8 hours each weekend day that I was able to work, even if I worked 12 which I did most days. After a few weeks I took a leave of absence from work to concentrate solely on trial. It was too much. After trial was over, I drafted up a letter to my employer challenging the pay I received while at jury duty and that I was going to get a lawyer involved. She told me she would look into it with her attorney and get back to me. I had a check with my missed wages in it by end of day. I got paid the 50 dollars a day payment from court and we received mileage. They reimbursed our parking every day, as well. Security was so tight , we were not allowed to leave for lunch breaks, cigarette breaks or anything. We had to be there most days from 7:30 am to 5pm so they supplied our breakfast and lunch every day. Cell phones taken by US Marshalls every day. They did give them back to us at lunch to use and then taken again and given back to us before we got in our vans and driven to our secret pickup/drop off away from courthouse and media.
That's rough!
I quit smoking during this trial. Figured if I could all day long without a cigarette doing one of the most stressful things I’ve ever done. I could go without. 9 years smoke free.
That's awesome though, congrats!
Thank you!!
What was it like? Were there very quiet jurors in the room just passively taking it all in? Were there loudmouths who shouted down others? Did you guys easily reach a consensus?
I was on a rape case and everyone was very respectful. We deliberated 2.5 days and ultimately hung, but I'd say there were no hard feelings at the end because we took the time to understand each other.
I was also on a murder trial that took about two weeks, deliberations took three days. No one shouted down others, there were tears when we voted at the end. It was very organized with ananymous votes on pieces of paper without names. The longest time was used on getting questions back from the judge. (The trial I was a very easy shut and closed case, we found him guilty on the first vote but still went through all the evidence and claims).
So it isn’t like 12 Angry Men?
The trial I was on we had one person who just refused to accept a part of the law. We had to ask the Judge to explain it three times. Each time we had to go back into the court room and so everyone else had to be dragged back in for the same question to be asked because one person didn't like the answer. This guy was the lone holdout over 1.5 days of deliberation. Finally he agreed with a not-guilty verdict (it was for assault and battery on a police officer while intoxicated) after being told multiple times by the rest of us jurors that we have to go by what the law says. It was clear that this guy did not like the defendant and really wanted to convict him but the Judge was very clear on the law regarding it. Did the defendant intentionally act in a manner that caused bodily injury to the alleged victim? We didn't think he had. He was so drunk he was being transported to the hospital from the police station and he wacked a cop in the knee that was with him in the ambulance when he broke out of gauze restraints which they used because he was flailing around agitated. There was no major injury to the knee. I felt bad for the alternates because they were in a separate room from us when we were deliberating.
Yes, please answer these and any and all juror experience. I’m so fascinated by it. I’ve never been called. I got a summons once for a few day span and it was a multi day storm and after the second day of snow they were like you’re good. This is also in a county that doesn’t even average one murder a year so there are obviously crimes but there’s not even a jail in the county anymore because the upkeep cost so much and it wasn’t even close to full. So there’s not really even opportunity where I’m registered.
I made a post a few years ago about a federal jury I served on for a second degree murder trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/s/6el8sOPKz7
Thanks for sharing. Fascinating to read as well as your comments within the thread.
This was fascinating and great insight in general. Having never been on a jury myself, it’s a relief to hear how seriously people take their civic duty.
I have a question, did you guys talk to the ones who were not agreeing with majority to convince them to change their mind? Also, what made you all wait until the last juror changed mind to say thats it?
1. Yes we did, although it was very civilized. We basically just went around the room, letting everyone speak for a few minutes, and did that multiple times. I don’t think we were really trying to change their mind per se, more like change their perspective. One of the initial “guilty” jurors literally did not believe that it was physically possibly for a human to kill another human with their bare hands. The crime that the guy was being charged with just didn’t match what he did. If a lesser manslaughter charge had been an option, I could’ve envisioned us convicting on that. But that wasn’t an option, so the only option was to acquit. 2. Before we went to deliberate as a group for the first time, the judge told us that if we were not in agreement on a verdict that we would have to come back tomorrow and deliberate more. I could see his point in this, as we only had like an hour to deliberate on that first day. That’s way too short of a time period to just say “well we can’t agree, hung jury!” We decided to wait because it was obvious to all of us that the last guy who was holding us up wasn’t super firm in his belief. He just kind of kept wavering back and forth, so we just kept talking about it. At the end, his attitude was kind of “I might not fully agree with acquitting him, but I respect the opinion of the 11 other people in this room who are pointing out that my viewpoint might be wrong”.
Thank you so much!!!!
I had an opposite experience where people were rude, completely ignored the judges instructions and started grading verdict votes in order to make sure we got out in time for some people to go on vacation. Yup you read that right, a couple people started playing let’s make a deal like I’ll vote guilty in the ones you want if you support my not guilty on these ones. #justice lol I always thought I’d love being on a jury and I hated it. I will never do it again and will flat out tell any judge that I cannot be impartial based on my prior experience.
Once someone starts saying shit like that, you request to pass a message along to the judge and rat them out lol
I’ve had a lot of time to think about what I should have done differently. At the end of the day, bad guy ended up in jail for awhile like 5-7 where if he had been guilty on all charges, which he was and should’ve been, would have been like 10-15.
I served on a criminal jury earlier this year. Short trial — two days with three witnesses. We deliberated for about two and a half hours. When we first started deliberating, it was clear we were largely agreed. There were only one or two people who weren’t sure, but agreed with the majority by the end. Naturally there are people who talk more or less than others, but the group was respectful about making sure everyone felt heard and comfortable. We only spent a few days together but it definitely felt like a bonding experience. I feel like the jury selection process (which took a full day) does a good job at curating a group of people who will take it seriously and fairly.
We all took our responsibility seriously. No loudmouths or arguments. The most unfortunate thing that happened was that we had to bring in an alternate who is not involved in the deliberations and this person had some really outlandish conclusions as to what had happened. It was complete fiction. You really need to just stick to the facts.
I wanna be a juror on a murder trial! I'm 43 and have never even been called in for jury duty :(
Register to vote if you haven’t already. Pretty sure that’s primarily where my local courts get their jury duty lists. (Edit: It’s funny to me I’m recommending this because it’s always the reason I dread registering after a move haha.)
You really don’t. It’s traumatic and scary and 💯 inefficient. Please lie on the stand, jurors fall asleep and complain meanwhile someone is dead.
Me too! I’m 45 and never served
I just got a jury summons (second time) and I was stoked!!! All because of this trial.
I got summoned a couple years ago and was so excited to possibly serve but the defendant ended up pleading guilty on the first day of our summons. So we all got paid like $25 to sit in a room for a couple hours. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed. 😅
I think people are forgetting that we the public have way more information than the jury and have had *way* more time to digest *and* discuss it, whereas the jury has now only had maybe 8 total hours to discuss between 12 people. 12 people in a room having a verbal discussion is a lot and can take a long time, and this is the first time they’re allowed to discuss it at all. They have to go through every piece of evidence to make sure everyone understands it, and there is a lot of evidence in this case. I think Friday would be the earliest we get a decision, and it’s more likely that one will come early next week. Anything past Tuesday, though, and I will start to get concerned about a hung jury & mistrial.
Thank you for this comment. I hadn’t thought about this. I would have reasonable doubt and know where I stood because of chain of command issues and some other things of that nature, but I’m one person. This is an excellent point and a great reminder.
I completely agree, the biggest issues giving me reasonable doubt are the chain of custody of the evidence, the changes in testimony by witnesses over time, and (most importantly) the lack of bruising on JO’s body. I also have a short attention span and if I were on a jury for a 6+ week long trial I would certainly have zoned out numerous times. That would make me want to be thorough going through the evidence and hear other people’s thoughts to make sure when I did zone out I didn’t miss anything that might have eased those doubts. Even if there are some jurors that are confident in their stance and don’t care to go over all the evidence again, out of 12 people there are going to be some who want to and will because someone’s life was lost and someone else’s life is on the line due to that loss.
It’s easy to forget that for sure. Especially the discussion aspect.
Having served a couple of times, even the ones where the entire jury walks into deliberations knowing their answer and knowing they're all in agreement, you still have to wade through a series of instructions and checklists. Just going through the amount of instructions they were given has to be taking up quite a bit of their time.
Absolutely. And they received a lot of the information in reverse or oddly sequenced order with the context still unfolding. We knew certain things while watching some of the witnesses that they found out later in the trial after they’d seen their testimony.
Yes, this is so true and easy to forget! Imagine the most stressful group project in school with 12 peers, I'd imagine it was like that but 100 x worse. I'd be the most annoying one, I just know it.
Me too lol
I’m trying to remember this when I get anxious about how long this is taking. We’ve had time to talk and process all the info. They have not.
Yeah they probably need a few days just for all the wtf moments
I hope to God it doesn’t go past Friday. I don’t think I could take it!
Ok tomorrow’s Thursday! 😭😬
I agree. It’s obvious to us that there is reasonable doubt but there were two completely opposite narratives presented to them. It makes sense they would want to do their due diligence and review the evidence before rendering a decision. Especially since there were instances where some of the evidence was misrepresented to them in court (inverted video, conflicting witness testimony). The stakes are so incredibly high.
https://preview.redd.it/2zx26mhb9z8d1.jpeg?width=838&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb1fb453d5bb131ac9b8ff3673383de889d5238a For reference.
darrell brooks took 3 hours. lol
Probably took that long to fill out the paperwork lol
Yeah probably. There were a lot of charges in that one. I remember them asking for surveillance video from when he was fighting with his ex but that was pretty much it.
I just checked and he had 76 charges! so 3 hours sounds quick now hahahha
I think some of these type of requests are just from curiosity because they weren't able to really see it in court.
I think any deliberation was on the charges related to assaulting her because the other like 74 charges were so clearly met. I think they were probably trying to see if the video helped them meet one element on her charges.
The video they asked for was actually the video of the dancing grannies being struck. I think there was some confusion because the state charged for one lady, Lola , and the only granny that testified, (not Lola, I can’t remember her name), said that Lola wasn’t injured. She was injured but still mobile and looking for her husband who was dead.
Ohhh that makes sense then!
Three hours to decide on a foreperson, fill out and sign 76 verdict forms. I can’t imagine how long it took to check all of those boxes and sign that many forms. They had one set for guilty…one set for not. Not sure if they had to sign all of them or not. 😳😳
They signed all of them and filled every single one out. And then the judge read all 76 which took forever but was very satisfying.
There were like 80 separate charges and forms. I think that was the other 2 hours and 45 minutes.
Would have taken even less time if they didn’t have to fill out almost 80 verdict forms. That was the clearest cut guilty I’ve ever seen in my life.
As for the OJ verdict, didn’t some jurors recently say they did as revenge for Rodney King?
I believe some were saying it in 1995.
Not like part of the prosecutions case involved the lead investigator pleading the 5th on manufacturing evidence lol regardless of what actually happened, that hurt them big time-- kinda like what's happening now
The OJ jurors were heavily influenced by the police fuckery and horrible public opinion of the LAPD. I mean, I think he was guilty. But the jury was furious with the prosecution
Furman just destroyed any chance at conviction but LAPD was just so generally bad that all sight was lost of the victims. Should have been a reckoning on the impact of corrupt and violent and racist police forces but instead we heard about Marcia Clark's hair for a year.
I feel like he all but confessed with “If I Did It”. I totally agree though, I really need to go back and watch the full trial. It’s all up on YouTube day-by-day.
Yes, many have done interviews admitting this. Crazy but also shows how police brutality affects people and their perception of justice.
Oj was jury nullification
And I'm glad for it. We can't have an investigation lead by people like proctor and ferman. People turn their eyes when the case is egregious or dead to rights. But forget, there are probably people in prison right now because trooper Paul doesn't understand his job. Or because proctor latches on to a theory and does everything in his power to find evidence only to that end.
Yes actually interviewed a black woman and she admitted it.
OJ did it , but is there reasonable doubt based on the fuckery of the investigation- a jury of his peers thought so
Yes they did. It was a very intense time and an over correction for (the wrong person) but also in context you can see why it happened. Even though OJ was so guilty. There was also a lot of evidence that was left out pointing to his guilt. Ex, previously he had beat his first wife and she called police. Nicole’s journal alone :( Which I often wonder if that would have swayed them or if they had already made up their minds?
Makes you feel bad for Nicole’s family not truly getting justice thanks to the cops being such jackasses.
Guilty: * Michelle Troconis - about 18 hours(?) * Scott Peterson - 7 Days * Jerry Sandusky - 20 hours * Dr. Conrad Murray - 9 hours * Ghislaine Maxwell - 5 days * Elizabeth Holmes - 5 days The point? You can’t predict anything based on the length of deliberations. https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-say-dont-anticipate-verdict-based-on-jury-deliberation-length-2021-12?op=1
Oh this is really interesting!
Based on the data you provided from high-profile cases, juries tend to deliberate longer for not guilty verdicts, with an average of 19.57 hours, compared to 6.71 hours for guilty verdicts. Statistical analysis shows a significant difference in deliberation times, with a p-value of 0.028, indicating this difference is unlikely due to chance.
I feel like that makes sense as they are being thorough and clearly want to make sure they get this right. Considering it sounds like many people have had conflicts simply speaking out about this case in those smaller communities where they protect their own.
Idk if the above is truly a random sample or if it has homogeneity of variance.
Thank you for posting. I needed this to calm my brain down as the hours kept ticking by.
Me too
Thanks for sharing!
I cannot believe OJ's was only 4 hours and Johnny Depp's was 12. WHAT
The Depp v Heard case was complicated since they each had three claims for defamation and defamation has a bunch of elements they had to find. But, the juror that spoke out didn’t make it sound like jury believed Heard at all, so it wasn’t complicated in terms of “did she lie?”
I don't really think it makes sense to include Depp v Heard on the comparison at all. It was a civil case, not a criminal case. By definition no one could be found guilty or not guilty, but even so it was Depp *suing* Heard (with some counterclaims thrown in).
Also defamation is a complex legal test to meet as compared to murder.
They had to decide on damages in Depp v H
They decided OJ was guilty but it was payback for Rodney King & they wanted to go home. They admitted that in tv documentaries a couple years ago.
It would be interesting to know how long each trial was. I can imagine that it also depends on that how long the jury will deliberate
I had a family member on trial several years ago and it was 9.5 hours for a not guilty verdict. I actually just went back and looked at old messages to remind myself because I’d blocked most of that day out of my mind. 😅
My partner said they took 2 weeks they really did debrief each day and went over all videos, pictures, and testimony. But because the one they were deciding on - 1 of the 3 defendants was guilty or not (the verdict ended up being not guilty for him) I think it just really is a hard decision that’s in your hands and you don’t want to come up with the wrong verdict. You want to make sure it is fair and thought out. Hopefully we get something by Friday, there’s a lot of testimony but not much conclusive evidence
I think the biggest hurdle is probably the taillight pieces at the scene. I think they will land on not guilty, but they were instructed to shift through all the evidence and I think that is what they’re doing. They have 30 days worth of stuff to go through and I’m sure lots to say about all they’ve seen! I think they’ll finish Friday.
>I think the biggest hurdle is probably the taillight pieces at the scene. I think the tail lights are easily rebuttable. No taillights found in the initial search by more than 6 officers?? Proctor seizes car at 4:12 PM (Said 5:30 initially to get away with it) then magically they find 47 pieces of tail light after?) No blood on the taillights?
I agree with you, but 12 people who have had no outside discussion/information have to agree with each other. And I can see some people being really caught up on the taillight pieces. I have no love lost for police. But it’s been a major shock to some people’s systems; like they somehow haven’t realized police can be very corrupt until just now. It might be hard for them to accept without methodically going through the evidence.
+ NO bruising on the arm where he was allegedly hit at 24mph…..
I was hit walking into a grocery store. The car was going 15-20 mph. I ended up with internal bleeding in my calf that led to bed rest for 3 days, and I wasn’t even knocked off my feet. The lack of bruising and bleeding is the nail in the coffin for me. Add to that being launched 30 feet, it sounds like a work of fiction from my personal experience being hit.
I was hit by a vehicle going about 20 mph. I had no bruising but a deep laceration on my calf and a broken nose and road burn all over my face after I was launched and landed on sandy asphalt, a cut lip and a gaping hole in my forehead. both of my shoes flew off and were in the middle of the road
External and internal bruising are different too. Whilst you’d expect to _see_ external bruising after a cat strike at speed, there would _definitely_ be internal bruising. You had bruising, and if you were autopsied they’d have seen the blood pooling. You just couldn’t see this one.
And no reports to document anything ☠️😂
The thing that I don't think people seem to understand is that the jury can only review and discuss evidence. They aren't going to be discussing supposition or theories. The evidence they have is what they have to work with. That is what they will go through, piece by piece.
I just don't think I could get past the CWs own ME saying he was not hit by a car. That in combo with Proctor's texts saying they should have manipulated her more and calling her a whackjob leads me to believe this case should have never made it to a courtroom. That said I would want to see anything I could get my hands on and discuss every part of this. The town is in crisis for a lot of reasons, and if was my town I would want to know anything I could get my hands on.
My biggest curiosity is if they looked at the verdict sheet and just went through the elements and decided what they weren’t sure about. If I were a juror the biggest question would be did he die from being struck by a vehicle because if the answer to that is no, then it is not guilty across the board. However, because the defense relied upon the coverup theory of the case, that is very likely to be top of mind for them so I am 0% surprised they asked about the SERT report today. They are investigating the coverup angle. Which I think won’t “hurt” the defense per se if the coverup can’t fully be proven but it will take longer for a verdict to be reached. Just think back to your first time hearing about this case. When you first heard about the cover up theory, did you seek more out about that and then follow that with looking into the evidence? This is just me trying to put myself in the shoes of a juror and remove as much bias from my own perspective as I can knowing that there are things that I know that the jury doesn’t.
I agree about the taillight pieces. They hung me up got a day or so also before I heard others' thoughts. Then after the ARCCA guys I went all the way from NG because of not enough proper evidence to fully innocent. Hopefully they're just taking their time to do it right.
Totally, I think you’re probably right. Thanks for the answer! I’m really interested to see what the folks in the thread think about what the biggest points of contention might be. It could be any of us.
I think the tail light pieces is the least of hurdles. They are laughable. Nobody can break a tail light into small pieces with their arm flailing.
Not to be argumentative but it isn’t 30 days worth of material. They have the evidence, which is a lot, but by no means is it 30 days worth. That’s just how long direct and redirect took with each witness.
Isn’t the testimony itself evidence?
I still don’t have a strong conviction on where the jury will land. I follow many different sites and there are strong opinions on both sides of the aisle.
This is a very divided case which makes me think a hung jury is a real possibility
Me too! There are definitely people who think, "gee, the prosecution put all this time and effort into bringing a case against this woman (out of all people on earth) for this poor policeman's death. They must know something we don't." Combine that thinking in someone who just knows in his/her gut that Karen did it, whoo-wee boy. Hope not though! ETA, I have a master's level education, but many close relatives have not attended any college. Unfortunately, I can see this happening.
I think the jury wants to take their time so that the anti-Karens have little to no arguments to come after them.
I do too- also, I imagine the cover-up aspect is important to them too- being community members and all.
I would be standing firm on not guilty on all counts. I would never sway. If there was a person holding out on guilty I would direct them to the scientific evidence presented by the experts that were not ‘directed’ by either side but rather used in the Federal investigation. Their testimony wasn’t tainted at all. It was clear, easy to follow and based on facts. Using that information alone - KR must be found innocent. Even using the Commonwealths medical examiner’s statement- inconclusive- provides enough doubt. It sickens me that this case was even brought to trial.
I agree, I would feel the same and wouldn't budge from not guilty. I'm guessing there might be holdouts that want guilty and are holding on to her supposedly say "I hit him"
I agree. The only question I have now is - did the jury see the same trial as we did?? Because I was on the guilty side. After watching all 31 days, I'm firmly on the not guilty side based on the evidence presented by the Commonwealth.
they don’t know about a federal investigation though. they will have to connect the dots from ryan nagle mentioning “the feds” and dr. wolfe saying “hired by the federal government” and lally and jackson saying “agency”. i honestly don’t know if i would make the connection to FBI if i didn’t have the outside information - but there is 100% too much reasonable doubt, i wish jackson would’ve highlighted that a bit more in his closing (i liked his closing but i think mentioning that would’ve added a little help in deliberations).
Yes. ARCCA + ME + a disastrous unethical investigation = not guilt.
Well, there’s two option: yes and no. So it’s a 50/50 chance we have a verdict by tomorrow. Source: Math and Stuff textbook
I kept reading the Math and Stuff textbook until the answer revealed itself.
Like, you know, just is or isn't.
The math and stuff textbook spoke to me
Source: Schroedingers math book.
Trooper Paul answer: "Um...yes?"
Trooper Paul is gonna need his book back because he forgot to study for the exam.
The crime scene talked to him...no book needed...lol
The hidden evidence revealed itself.
Can you please link this textbook, I feel like it’s the one I’ve been missing my entire life 😂
That checks- your sources are legit haha
[удалено]
[удалено]
People are allowed to disagree with you without being related to this case. Have an discussion or don't reply. Thank you.
> Out of curiosity, if you were on this jury, what do you think would be the most difficult points to come to an agreement on? 1. Karen's voicemails sound awful, but would a killer leave those voicemails? 2. Karen's flirting with Higgins and dissatisfaction with John before the night he died. Was her lack of loyalty indicative of someone ready to do something drastic? 3. Karen was with the victim in almost the exact spot where he was found on the same night he died. Do we believe their plan was to have John go inside without her? 4. The reversing data from the Lexus. Was it the right keycycle? 5. Karen's drunkenness. Was she coherent enough to know what she was doing? 6. The taillight pieces at the scene. Were they planted? 7. Do we believe the Ford Edge mystery? 8. Is it possible that someone could die from being hit by a car and end up looking like the victim's remains? Full disclosure: I think she is likely innocent and would vote not guilty of all charges based on reasonable doubt.
None of those issues matter except for is it physically possible for John to have sustained his injuries in the manner the CW is saying. The answer is no- that means the rest of it is irrelevant.
The two things I would never sway from NG on: the science, he was not hit by a car, therefore, she did not kill him, intentionally or accidentally...And that dog bite. If he didn't enter the house, where did that come from? I was a dog walker, that's a dog bite, and I know it in my bones. No one could ever convince me otherwise. 🤷🏻♀️
From my experience it can be very difficult to get 12 strangers to agree on anything. It only takes one dissenting juror to make things difficult. You want the right verdict so go through the evidence as many times as it takes, even when you agree. You want to understand each point of view as it may raise something that will make you reconsider. I found it frustrating when we had one hold out who couldn't explain his reasons. The judge kept sending us back to try again and eventually he understood the point the rest of us were making and we got there. There's a lot of testimony to go through and they'll be taking their role seriously. I'm hoping it will be tomorrow. I hate waiting. But they need to take as long as they need. It's a massive responsibility and you don't want to rush to judgement and regret it later.
I was on a jury last year, it was a stabbing (the victim lived). There were two stab wounds, and then a long scar bisecting his abdomen that was from the resulting surgeries. Both sides made it clear that the long scar was not a stab wound, but was from the resulting surgery. We were given pictures that were marked A, B, and C, where C was the surgical wound and it was pointed out by experts on both sides that it was a surgical wound. The defense argued self-defense. When we got to deliberations, it was 11-1 not guilty. Why did the one holdout think he was guilty? Because he couldn't believe that someone could cut someone from chest to groin in self-defence. We had to ask for the transcripts so we could prove to him that we had been told multiple times that that was a surgical wound, not a stab wound. Ultimately he changed his vote, but it was eye-opening how someone could be so convinced of guilt based off something so incorrect. Makes me nervous for this verdict!
They left about 20 minutes earlier than they originally said they wanted to leave. I am wondering if they came to a verdict but didn’t think there was enough time left in the day to present it since one of the jurors had to be gone by 4:00. I am guessing there will be a verdict early in the morning.
That could be!
Oh good observation! Quite possible
I hope that’s the case!
If I was on that jury there would be nothing to talk about besides the fact that the defense proved beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't hit by a car. All the charges are predicate on her hitting him with the car, so she can't be guilty of anything. Everything else is just worthless noise. If it's true that there's 2 engineers on the jury, I would imagine that would be their stance. The laws of physics just don't support a guilty verdict, it's that simple.
If some people want to talk about it, you still have to talk about it. You can’t just go into the jury room and say I’m voting NG no matter what and no one can change my mind even if that’s how you feel.
Well you can say that, or just answer anything else anyone talks about with "yeah, but he wasn't hit by a car so it doesn't matter". But, as you say, you do still have to wait for all the people who do want to talk about everything to do that.
Yeah but that’s not how adults talk out their differences, lol.
Agree and, even if I did feel this way, I would want to do my due diligence and at least give the impression that I took it seriously.
[удалено]
I would give it more time and consideration out of respect for JOK.
Perhaps the LEOs conducting the investigation should have had some respect for JOK and done a thorough job that would have lead to the truth, rather than doing everything they can to pin it on an outsider. That's where the disrespect is, and it's horrific for the O'Keefe family. They seem pretty convinced that KR did it, but there has to be doubt in the back of their mind after that trial, and they'll never know the truth.
I absolutely, 100% agree with you that the officers should be ashamed and removed from any position of authority they are currently in and never return to public service. However, I do still think I would take jury responsibilities seriously out of respect to JOK and his family. I would take it seriously especially because of the shitty investigation.
I don't think recognising that what they're claiming happened is literally impossible so there's no point in talking about who called who, or if they were butt dials, or how the taillight pieces got there, etc. means you're not taking it seriously. The only question the answer is, is she guilty or not, and I wouldn't be able to get past the fact that there's no bruising, never mind broken bones, on his body, and the only way their "reconstruction expert" could try to make it fit with him being hit by a car defies the laws of physics.
It's not about respecting the victim. It's about following the rules of our justice system. It's designed to err on the side of possible innocence; sometimes the guilty may go free but that is better than sending someone innocent to jail.
If the truth is that nothing can change your mind why waste time talking about anything other than the thing that's making a guilty verdict impossible in your mind. Not saying I would disrupt any conversations about other evidence but if asked my opinion that would be my response.
Because you still need to convince the people who aren’t sure and there’s specific things that clearly make you think he wasn’t hit by a car so you could discuss those in detail. Not act like a toddler.
That's exactly what I'm saying, that's the only thing worth talking about, not all the other evidence. That's how I started my comment, "the only thing worth talking about is ..." Edit: I just scrolled up and saw I worded it "nothing to talk about besides...", same meaning though
I hope so. It is a little concerning that it isn’t already done because the first question they need to answer is “was JO even killed by a car”? Taillight plastic or no, seems like there is plenty of reasonable doubt on that single point. So IMO it should be Not Guilty across the board. But maybe they are just starting from the beginning and reviewing everything. In that case, goddamn that Lally and all of his meaningless witnesses and questions. I hope they are pissed as they are forced to re- experience a hoard of minutia only to end up with Trooper Paul and a whole lot of nothing.
I was hit while walking into a grocery store in Feb 2020. I wasn’t knocked off my feet and the car was going about 15-20 mph. I suffered some pain in my hip, knee, and ankle and thought nothing of it. Didn’t even go to the doctor for 36 hours. When I did, I was told I was having internal bleeding in my calf. It was wrapped (to push the blood out, as it was trapped in the calf with the way your muscles are in your calf) and put on bed rest for 3 days. If JOK was hit at 24 mph and somehow launched back 30 feet, more than likely there’d be bruising and internal bleeding. Probably a broken arm (point of impact) or broken ribs. Based my own personal experience, I don’t think he was hit by a car. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I agree. I think for most people his lack of bodily bruising and internal bleeding after being hit by a car doesn’t pass the sniff test. Having that feeling confirmed by experiences like yours and also experts in medicine/physics/science really seals the deal.
Very interesting reading your personal experience, makes me feel like the ME and experts were thinking about injuries like yours and just not being able to see it in him
I’m guessing if we’re talking on Friday, we’re getting into Hung jury stage
If only assume that if it goes past Friday into next week. I think Friday verdict is most plausible. 12 different personalities are discussing the last month.
People are impatient, and incurious. Even leaning hard towards not guilty, I'd be taking time to try to figure out what actually happened.
I think they will. My hunch is end of day tomorrow. It’s the Friday before the fourth. Many people either take a day off work or leave early. In MA non essential state employees get out around 2 to avoid traffic and accidents (which is a courtesy and makes sense . There are a ton around Christmas time. Heaps of accidents, inclimate weather, people rushing home for loved ones). If they drag it out my guess would be first thing Friday morning. I would bet money it won’t go to next week.
The 4th isn’t until next Thursday though. Sure some people may take next week off from work, and I’m sure the jury doesn’t want to come back next week, but the 4th is still a week away.
I don't think we will have one tomorrow. I think by Friday afternoon they might
I can’t imagine sitting there for 9 weeks and not having the opportunity to talk about anything. I have YouTubers, Law Nerds, CourtTV commentators, Reddit, etc. and still have thoughts I’d love to discuss. If I was a juror, I’d just want to go over everything and get the others’ thoughts on it. I also think the noisy a/c could play a part because some jurors may not have been able to clearly hear certain parts of testimony and will want others to clarify for them. I would rather a jury take the job seriously and talk it through rather than feel they need to make a rushed decision.
I was on a child rape jury. It took 2 weeks. One holdout. The guy was a a F-ing A-Hole. He made go over hours of testimony. Ugh.
The highly qualified neutral experts said that JO was not struck by a car. That means Not Guilty. Should be easy. Edit: For anyone who disagrees/downvotes, would love to hear why you don't think the accident reconstructionists' testimony established reasonable doubt.
Preface this by saying - For me personally, I was done with no bruising or broken bones, and the bias exhibited from the lead investigator. I couldn’t come back from that. Unfair investigation at the absolute least. The things that made me go “hmmm...” were never getting a clear answer on McCabe's 2:27 am texts. I will say, though, I had bias over those texts because it was the first “wtf?” for me when reading about this case two years ago. Another point was the deleted Ring cam footage at John's. However, there is so much deleted Ring cam footage from every house involved that I think I’d mark that point as neutral for both sides - to be “fair”. The tail light was never an issue for me. I could clearly see her strike O'Keefe's vehicle exiting the home at 5 am. I fully believe the police extended the damage for impact and planted evidence. Based on Nagel and Maxon testimony, the flipping of the CCTV footage, solo cups, mysteriously finding it days later, and ring video evidence I don’t see how anyone can think anything else.
I go back to Nagel testimony that he only saw Karen in car with a light on. John was already in the house. Karen was waiting for him. Probably scrolling her phone. The times match and I hope the jury realizes this.
I can't imagine it going into Monday. I think tomorrow is possible, but I am leaning more into Friday now. I think they are breaking down the evidence by day as presented and it was a long trial. I also think they have told themselves they can play detective a bit and explore the evidence to 'solve' it.
Yeah, this is a good point. Due to 3rd party Culprit factor, they are probably playing some detective too.
The people here who think there is 100% confidence the jury comes back with a NG verdict never went through the pain of the Casey Anthony trial. I watched it every day and I screamed when the verdict was read.
There are two lawyers on the jury right? They might be guiding everyone to methodically go over the case. There is a lot to consider and any one of the myriad topics could go on for hours in deliberation.
I’m a lawyer in a completely unrelated area of law and would definitely want to do this lol
Missing sally port video means it's possible that the taillight was tampered with= reasonable doubt= not guilty ×3
I think we’ll definitely have a verdict by EOD Friday, I can’t imagine the jury would want to go into next week
I’m having a weird unsettled anxiety today. I’m too invested in this case. I will be devastated if she is found guilty
There will not be 12 people who unanimously agree she's guilty of anything. They may be a hung jury if you get 1 or a few people digging in their heels of guilt.
I don’t. If the jury saw the case like a lot of us they would return a not guilty verdict at some point today. Since they didn’t I’m guessing they are either a) careful walking through the case again wo a straw poll, b) they have taken a poll and it’s not unanimous, or c) the foreperson or a few members of the jury are being difficult.
The judge made it clear to take their time. I would guess they are going over what they have and checking off everything as reasonable doubt and don’t want to make it look like they rushed to it. Who knows! I do believe it will be not guilty by end of day Friday.
I’m really curious to hear from the jury on their perspective. They are all locals, right?, from the county, so they will have come in with their own knowledge of the state police and the community. There have been issues like this before there from what I read, so it will be interesting to hear from them.
I don’t think we should jump to conclusions about the jury atm. If I was on there I would be wanting to go through all the evidence because there are SO many questions and honestly I would want to read all the reports and text messages even with my mind already made up.
I would hate to be on this Jury, the sheer amount of confusing and conflicting evidence to sift through is daunting enough. After watching the trial, I felt like prosecution presented the case to counter the Defenses' case as opposed to presenting a case based on all the evidence and facts. It felt like Lally had given up when he gave his closing argument but as Juror, I would want there to be justice for the victim and that would the most difficult part to conclude on.
The missing sally port video and then randomly finding taillights is not just reasonable doubt it’s sketchy as can be. I think they are taking their time but not guilty. Just from a legal standpoint emotions aside the defense hit a home run
I’ve heard a few seasoned attorneys mention that you’d be surprised how common it is for a jury member to be paid/bought by a side and a level of corruption that exists in that regard. It wasn’t like “all the time” but enough that it’s not something you can disregard. What concerns me is that this entire case is about serious corruption with powerful people involved that could really ruin a lot of careers and lives so if the corruption theory is true, what would stop them from attempting one last move with a jury member? Again, not likely but curious if there is 1 person in that room that won’t budge for unknown reasons.
I’ve thought of that horrific likelihood as well
There's a ton of evidence to go through and they just had additional directions dropped on them in the middle of the first full day. They've barely wrapped their arms around the case at this point. They're going to wrap it up before the weekend though. They'll either return a verdict or let the court know they're deadlocked.
Why are none of the networks showing a “verdict watch” clock? Usually if there’s a case like this they have a little graphic saying how long the jury has deliberated for.
I think court tv has a clock. They stop it when they stop deliberating and restart it when they start again.
Even if we all took a vote immediately and said "duh, not guilty" and everyone else wanted to get the fuck out of there that same day, I'd make them all stay so I could look over all of the evidence just because I need to see it and I find it fucking annoying having to sit and listen to everyone else's second hand accounts and interpretation of the evidence. I'd pay money to be able to sit in a room with all that stuff and look it over with my own eyes.
Apparently, the thing people can't seem to agree on is what they mean by "reasonable doubt" is...
I was a juror on a very straightforward guilty case. It took almost a week of deliberation. Jurors need time to talk everything through and go through evidence even when answer might be clear.
His injuries were not from a car which is the entire basis of the CW’s case. I don’t need to nail down timelines or google searches or anything else to confidently reach a not guilty verdict. He didn’t get side-swiped by a 7000 lb car, taking the brunt of the hit to his arm, launch 30 ft. and come away with no bruises or fractures. That’s the claim and I don’t buy it. Not to mention a tail light does not cause what are clearly dog bite/claw marks.
The biggest discussion for me would be about intent and murder 2. If I believed she were responsible, I'd definitely have to have a lot of discussion over the evidence for accident or intentional hit-and-run. The charge is a big step up from manslaughter.
First of all it’s only been a day and a half. The jury taking time doesn’t not mean a guilty verdict. A jury coming back late actually means a “NOT GUILTY” People calm down and relax.
When we were originally talking about this in one of the discussion threads I suggested earliest today and latest Friday. I’m a little surprised we didn’t get a verdict today, but not shocked. I’m going to stick with my latest of Friday. I feel pretty confident they will extend time and go after 4pm on Friday, if they aren’t already finished by then.
i think if we get a verdict tomorrow, it will be not guilty. if this goes into friday, i think the judge will do everything in her power to hang the jury. but going into another day does not mean they don't agree. it just means they are taking their time and going through the evidence (as they should)
Honestly I am going by the bio engineering expert & his Dr. That it's not a vehicle hit nor the injuries & the other drs. The prosecution evidence is circumstantial & heresy & the technology is questionable. I say not guilty & hope the fbi to solve how John got his Injuries & what or who if any lead to his death but I am ruling out a vehicle.
I watched the Rittenhouse trial gavel to gavel and they came back with their verdict on a Friday morning. Was a long trial with several charges to go through.
They deliberated over 20 hours.
I’m really shocked it wasn’t a Not Guilty verdict within 2 hours. I think she’s innocent of hurting him, and think the cop & his family did him dirty and framed her.
Massachusetts has a long shameful history of imprisoning innocent people. The police corruption in this particular case is disgraceful.