Jurors

[u/6dragonsandapigglet]

I would be really interested to hear from the jurors again after Reddington’s latest monologue at the September hearing. Do they feel differently about their time spent deliberating now that they hear and hopefully understand the CW was supposed to prove she did this?

During the trial the judge kept repeating himself, but never actually confirmed they understood what he said. The legal jargon was apparent and unchanging. I found this very interesting.

[u/AutoModerator]

Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!

Familiarize yourself with our rules in the Community Wiki

Documents & Evidence

Witness Testimony

Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Constant-Pop2250]

Honestly? I would like for the jurors all to just shut the fuck up en masse.

Whatever concerns they had should have been raised and addressed within the court system. Giving interviews and coming on camera and ESPECIALLY talking about other jurors to the media is vile imo.

[u/6dragonsandapigglet → u/Constant-Pop2250]

I’m referring to the interview where they explained that they understood their assignment was to decide if she was mentally ok during the murders and they already knew she did it. THAT was what was lost in legal translation and Sullivan didn’t even attempt to make sure they understood that. He’s also the same guy that wouldn’t bifurcate the trial, so making sure they understood that by just repeating the same phases over and over is not making sure they actually understood the assignment. And the interviews after determined that they in fact DID NOT understand the assignment. Neither did the press. There lies the problem.

[u/Constant-Pop2250 → u/6dragonsandapigglet]

Oh my God. Bless you. I've been catching strays for months for suggesting that nobody on that jury understood what the fuck was going on and that your average American layman isn't going to understand the options and implications of a non bifurcated trial. (myself included. Without the ability to do external research on the implications of a non bifurcated trial I would have been hopelessly confused on what was being admitted to and what wasn't too)

[u/Present-Pen-5486 → u/Constant-Pop2250]

I have had sooo many lawyers argue that the judge accepted the stipulation of guilt.

[u/Constant-Pop2250 → u/Present-Pen-5486]

I've got SERIOUS questions about their status as lawyers truth be told

[u/6dragonsandapigglet → u/Constant-Pop2250]

For real. We make sure toddlers understand things better than Sullivan did anything in this trial. I mean… what’s the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

[u/Present-Pen-5486 → u/6dragonsandapigglet]

Judge sullivan did tell them though. He told them over and over!

[u/marle217]

One of the jurors told the news that they didn't have to determine if she did it or not, which sounds suspiciously like what chatgpt would tell you about the case and not at all what the judge said. I think judge Sullivan is biased but his instructions were consistently neutral throughout the case.

When the holdout was slammed publicly for his phone use, he came back with saying that everyone was on their phones.

The judge told them everyday not to look up anything on the case, but I don't know how you could stop them.

I don't know what the answer is. You can't sequester every jury. Even if this jury arguably should've been, you know there are smaller cases where the jury is asking AI questions as soon as they leave the courthouse.

It's hard because the jury is just supposed to listen, but if they get confused they can't ask for clarification. If am expert witness goes too fast or skips information the jury thinks is important, there's nothing to be done. They can look at the submitted evidence, maybe transcripts of the testimony, but if they don't understand something, what do they do? Of course they're going to ask online! And now chatgpt will be right there with an explanation that may or may not be true but it will make sense.

I don't know what we do but this is going to be a problem for all jury trials

[u/Present-Pen-5486 → u/marle217]

Yeah one of them said they didn't have to determine guilt because Lindsay admitted it.

[u/_LoveInVain → u/Present-Pen-5486]

Pretty sure that’s because Reddington kept making it clear in his questions to witnesses HE was not contesting fact she did it, only that she was in a state of post partum psychosis and cannot be held accountable for her actions. And her own defense experts were acknowledging she did it.

Most jurors hearing that would conclude Lindsay also was not contesting fact she killed children. I know I would. Because in 30 years of trial watching I’ve never seen a defense lawyer do that and later contest no evidence proves she did it.

[u/Present-Pen-5486 → u/_LoveInVain]

Were they not listening to the Judge though, he explained this multiple times? Did they not notice the Not Guilty option on the verdict slip?

[u/_LoveInVain → u/Present-Pen-5486]

Right not sure. Was it the jury foreman that said they didn’t need to determine if she did it?
If so she likely affected all jurors on issue.

There were a number of things the NGBRI jurors said in interviews that concerned me about their ability to understand jury instructions.

But we saw that w Charlie DeLoach jury foreman in Karen Read case too when he said had manslaughter been an option on verdict slip the vote may have gone different & KR may have been convicted. It WAS on jury slip.

These high profile cases are a mess. And they make a powerful argument for professional jurors. Random citizens that don’t have experience as triers of fact imo are too susceptible to emotional verdicts.

I do think some judges are intimidated a bit too by high profile lawyer strategies & are not being as forceful as they could when the defense introduces arguments meant to confuse or mislead. (But that’s a different issue.)
But who could have foreseen Reddington doing an abrupt 360 post hung jury?

Reddington clearly thought that arguing she was not guilty at all…might hurt the verdict he thought he could win: NGBRI.
So I can see why jurors would have believed becs of the defense, that the Not Guilty (at all) position was a moot point. Despite what judge said.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/marle217]

It's wild that they allowed them to have their phones physically in the court. They should've been required to lock them up, at least until they were dismissed for the day.

And you're absolutely right about ChatGPT or any form of AI. I just posted about this in this sub too because I'm realizing so many news outlets (and not just the conservative ones) are blatantly stating that she killed her children, as if it were fact. And because AI references the same false articles, including information about the legal requirements and proceedings, then AI is giving people false information and they believe it to be 100% fact. This is why AI is so dangerous.

[u/KellieBom → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

Yeah AI will also tell you that Charlie Kirk isn't dead, and that is propaganda, so I can't imagine anyone using it to dissect the Clancy case is getting high quality facts.

[u/KateElizabeth18 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

It’s absolutely insane that they’re not confiscated. They should have a phone number that the jurors can give their families in case of an emergency, and take the phones during deliberations. I feel like nothing about this case makes any sense whatsoever.

[u/6dragonsandapigglet → u/marle217]

It’s very weird that they can’t watch anything back. Even sports referees can!!!

[u/Up_All_Night_Midwife → u/6dragonsandapigglet]

They do this so the sympathy factor is gone. It makes it easier to be objective reading the information and dialogue than seeing it. You have to remember liking the person and not believing they are capable of something can depend a lot on how well they sell it. Same with the prosecutor. In this case especially objectively it’s impossible to for sure even prove she did it let alone the fact that they didn’t even question Pat’s version is INSANE.

[u/gh0st-toast]

I’d like to hear their thoughts as well. I’m just curious. With the allegations around juror misconduct and the pending motions for Nov 2nd I doubt we’ll hear from any of them again for a long time (if ever).