If, You Were a Juror in a Murder Case . .
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I'll ask my wife. About 5 years ago, she was the foreman on a jury that convicted a guy for murder here in Lynchburg. I don't recall if the defendant took the stand or not.
I will get back to this thread after speaking with her. But I did have this picture of my wife in my wallet so I just scanned it. Here she is about a year ago. I took this when we were just messing around the house. She's something, isn't she?
Nice rack!Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
I will get back to this thread after speaking with her. But I did have this picture of my wife in my wallet so I just scanned it. Here she is about a year ago. I took this when we were just messing around the house. She's something, isn't she?
Tight a$$ too . . man, she's got it all going for her.Originally posted by nctransplant:
Nice rack!Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
I will get back to this thread after speaking with her. But I did have this picture of my wife in my wallet so I just scanned it. Here she is about a year ago. I took this when we were just messing around the house. She's something, isn't she?
Really interesting question, Billy. I honestly don't know. I'm thinking no because I could easily conjecture reasons why he might not whether guilty or innocent. That's my inner coryfly coming out.
I've only been called for jury duty once. It was a discrimination case against Wal-Mart. I showed up in a business suit and was promptly dismissed from the jury pool.
Well, I was foreman on a jury trying a man for shooting his son 3 times at point blank range with a .44. It was the son's birthday bash, there was drinking (of course) and dad essentially showed up uninvited. Anyhoo, dad and son get into an argument, end up trading blows and dad leaves for about 30-45 minutes. Comes back and is standing in the yard calling the son out, who eventually meets dad in the street. Two of the son's friends went out with him to try to calm things down. Dad has the gun in his jacket pocket completely hidden with both hands in said pockets. Without warning and from less than 3 feet away dad fires 3 shots, one shot hitting the son in the groin area (no, not there!), with the bullet exiting through his backside. Another shot going through his side and through the back side and the third hitting him in the hand.
Dad takes off and ends up turning himself in a few hours later. Son is in the hospital for about a week, but recovers.
Now, to the trial. The WHOLE time the defense offered up almost NOTHING in the way of rebuttals to anything the DA presented. They didn't argue that dad didn't shoot the son or anything. In a nut shell they essentially decided to hope the guy wouldn't get sent up for life. Not once did dad take the stand or even speak in court during the proceedings.
I say all of this because when we were sent back that first day after being given instructions, almost half the pool was ready to let dad off with almost nothing. Luckily I managed to remind everyone that we had rules to follow and couldn't go with emotions and we went home that day before making a final decision. The next morning before any debate we took another informal vote. There were now 3 holdouts. Two were young women in their early to mid 20's (one black one white) and one older black woman. When we started debating the two young women kept saying "I just can't believe he really meant to kill his son". It took a LOT of effort, but after finally getting through to 2 of the three that we had to take the emotions out of the equation and go on the facts and guidelines we were given, we were close. The lone hold out was a mid 20's black woman who had been twice warned by the judge not to show up late during the proceedings. The first time she came in an hour late and almost threw the entire thing off.
In the end she decided to vote guilty, but still just couldn't get around the guy "meaning" to kill his son. One of the deciding factors for her? When I pointed out that, despite MULTIPLE opportunities presented to him not once did the man ever get up in court to show remorse or even say "I'm sorry" to his son. That seemed to convince her that he might have actually meant to kill the kid.
Dad was found guilty, we were all polled and said we were unanimous and when given a chance to speak before sentencing dad FINALLY got up and said he was sorry, although it seemed pretty empty and more to keep from being sent up for life. In the end he was sentenced to 75 years (maximum) and not eligible for parole for 50, meaning that, being in his 60's, he would never see daylight again.
In this case, his not getting up and speaking on his behalf probably cost him because had he just once shown some remorse I have no doubt at least 3 jurors would have wanted to let him off easier.
Dad takes off and ends up turning himself in a few hours later. Son is in the hospital for about a week, but recovers.
Now, to the trial. The WHOLE time the defense offered up almost NOTHING in the way of rebuttals to anything the DA presented. They didn't argue that dad didn't shoot the son or anything. In a nut shell they essentially decided to hope the guy wouldn't get sent up for life. Not once did dad take the stand or even speak in court during the proceedings.
I say all of this because when we were sent back that first day after being given instructions, almost half the pool was ready to let dad off with almost nothing. Luckily I managed to remind everyone that we had rules to follow and couldn't go with emotions and we went home that day before making a final decision. The next morning before any debate we took another informal vote. There were now 3 holdouts. Two were young women in their early to mid 20's (one black one white) and one older black woman. When we started debating the two young women kept saying "I just can't believe he really meant to kill his son". It took a LOT of effort, but after finally getting through to 2 of the three that we had to take the emotions out of the equation and go on the facts and guidelines we were given, we were close. The lone hold out was a mid 20's black woman who had been twice warned by the judge not to show up late during the proceedings. The first time she came in an hour late and almost threw the entire thing off.
In the end she decided to vote guilty, but still just couldn't get around the guy "meaning" to kill his son. One of the deciding factors for her? When I pointed out that, despite MULTIPLE opportunities presented to him not once did the man ever get up in court to show remorse or even say "I'm sorry" to his son. That seemed to convince her that he might have actually meant to kill the kid.
Dad was found guilty, we were all polled and said we were unanimous and when given a chance to speak before sentencing dad FINALLY got up and said he was sorry, although it seemed pretty empty and more to keep from being sent up for life. In the end he was sentenced to 75 years (maximum) and not eligible for parole for 50, meaning that, being in his 60's, he would never see daylight again.
In this case, his not getting up and speaking on his behalf probably cost him because had he just once shown some remorse I have no doubt at least 3 jurors would have wanted to let him off easier.
No, as a true crime buff i know the idiocy of any defendant taking the stand. Its always a desperation hail mary move.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Similar threads
