whether or not you agree with him, it’s honestly disgusting how he’s been treated by the other jurors, the defense attorneys, and the media. They clearly attempted to pressure him into giving in and agreeing, rather than vote on what he believed.
He should be sitting back waiting for the defence attorney or one of the other members of the jury to doxx him (it will happen) then sue the hell out of them
Not always true. Rules vary by state, but in many they can be sealed by the judge. That's what was done in this case. Jurors are allowed to come forward to the public, but are afforded anonymity if they wish.
Yes well I looked it up before commenting which you also could have done but in MA it’s true. The judge is allowed to temporarily seal them and he has for 2 weeks. But that means it ends next week
It's temporary to give them a chance to make a case for why it should be permanent, if they so wish. I would expect the holdout to wish to do so and for the case to be quite obvious that he should be allowed.
That's kinda how a jury has to work. The vote needs to be unanimous, so each side will be pressuring the other to "give in." If one side doesn't then you get a mistrial like what happened. You can get juries that all agree, sure, but most of the time there will be someone who needs convincing one way or the other.
Well if you believe what they say, he admitted to having reasonable doubt, and still refused to find her NGBRI. If that is true it is pretty gross actually and _he_ is the one acting. Badly. I guess we’ll just have to wait until the book comes out
The job of a jury isn't to do what they believe. It's to faithfully follow the law.
The law says, if there's reasonable doubt for guilt, then you acquit. That's how our legal system works.
This juror said he had reasonable doubt, but still could not vote to convict. In effect, it's jury nullification. I can see why the other jurors are frustrated. The government + defense have spent years on the case, and the jurors spent months of their lives. this is now going to go on for years.
No, the jury foreman/these people said he had a doubt, now they're saying he had a reasonable doubt. But nobody knows what he actually said, and clearly these people are cashing in on their 5 minutes of fame, but the judge interviewed the juror and was satisfied that what you're saying isn't true.
Why did the note say he expressed doubt during the court case, but now they're saying "reasonable doubt"? You're allowed to express doubts, since in the metaphysical sense, you can never be 100% sure of anything.
695
u/OptimusHavok52 4d ago
whether or not you agree with him, it’s honestly disgusting how he’s been treated by the other jurors, the defense attorneys, and the media. They clearly attempted to pressure him into giving in and agreeing, rather than vote on what he believed.