A jury decides the facts of a case in accordance with principles of the law as explained by a judge. Jurors listen to testimony, review evidence, and render decisions in civil and criminal trials.
How many of you have sat on a jury? Can you offer any insight on what happens during deliberation, what was your experience?
When I was in my late 20's and mid 30's I got selected for Jury duty, twice. The first time I was able to writer a letter to excuse myself. The second time I needed my doctor to confirm my debilitating anxiety. I managed to get out of it both times, and now I am begging to sit in on one.
The amount of stuff I learned dealing with JM's criminal case, is more interesting than anything I ever learned in school. Stuff like this intrigues me, learning the "mind" keeps me motivated. If I am interested in a certain subject, I do every thing I can to gain knowledge on it.
This is no different. Criminal justice, the law, evidence, and the different revised codes are intriguing to learn. From the start of this nightmare, till present I have a notebook dedicated to "learning".
I am NOT a criminal justice expert, so some of this stuff is simply my thoughts/opinion! I don't know how someone could get it wrong, so incredibly wrong, so I need educated. I am trying to understand it, but I can't. The evidence pointed to self-defense, the witness statements pointed to ambush and premeditated from the other individual. So how did 12 individuals all agree to "murder"? I'm serious, I need an outside party to fill me in. What am I missing?
I try to put myself in the jurors shoes. I am sitting in a room with 12 other individuals reading and reviewing the evidence to decide a man's (womans) fate. Let's be honest, I can guarantee all 12 jurors didn't read all 40 pages of jury instructions while deliberating. I bet they "skimmed" through, which became lethal to John.
How, can you "skim" through any thing knowing it decides someone's fate? Did you watch the video, did you see the crime scene photos? Did you read the witness statements? Two individuals, six different stories, and you didn't think ONCE red flag?
I mean sure, in certain situations people's perception of things change over time. This wasn't the case with these statements. This was blatant lying, story creating. Statements given a week apart and every single one was uniquely different then the last. Yet, that's overlooked because of the "hectic" situation?
John was expected to remember every detail of that day. No one else took 17 blows to the head, and it's okay that their stories didn't line up with the "evidence"? Yet, John was questioned twice and both times his recollection was the closest to the footage then any of the other people present, but because his wasn't SPOT on, you thought he was "lying"?
I am genuinely confused. Twelve individuals and every single one got it wrong? No one noticed the weapons that were used to attack John? No one questioned "where's the rest of the video", no one demanded an explantation for the botched investigation? No one thought it was odd that every witness the prosecution called, benefited John in some shape or form?
Did you know that one of the juror's on the trial actually worked in the court house? Another one was a caregiver for the Judge's mother? That has to be some sort of conflict of interest, right? You would think, but not in Mahoning County. Conflict of interest only matters when it affects a political party in the system.
I promise you, if John was given a fair trial I'd accept the verdict and support him mentally and emotionally while he was incarcerated. If all evidence was given and reviewed, a thorough investigation was performed, and statements matched the evidence, I wouldn't even think twice about exposing the "corruption", but that's not the case.
I found out after the verdict that a woman who my daughter knew sat on the jury and said "he seems like a really sweet guy I'd invite him over for dinner", but agreed with the guilty verdict. I'm having a hard time understanding how you can agree to something, when evidence was withheld, and questions weren't asked. Important questions that would have changed the direction of the case. I mean, how?
Someone make it make sense, please, If this happened to John, how many other individuals did we wrongfully convict? How many incarcerated individuals don't have the family/friend support to guide them through this process? Thousands of incarcerated individuals and I guarantee not many have someone to advocate for them.
I am so heart broken by this. Call it crazy, call it delusional. What you can't call it is a cut and dry case with the evidence pointing to murder. You simply can't.
"beyond reasonable doubt".
I mentioned FIVE key pieces that disprove their "reasonable" doubt, and you couldn't find one? I'm trying to figure out if it was incompetent or inconvenience that lead to the guilty verdict. If you were ever a juror, please weighin with what I am missing. Help me understand.
Luke 6:37. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
Comments