I THE JUROR
Anatomy of a Murder Trial
By an Anonymous Juror
Recent articles in The Citizen and KONK Life reflect the perspective of two of the jurors from the Fantasy Fest Murder Trial. One juror claimed she was bullied during jury deliberations. The other disputed the DNA evidence presented by an expert witness.
I was one of the 12 jurors who served on this Trial, and I am writing to set the record straight. Both of those jurors took no notes during six long days of testimony and insisted on the defendant’s innocence. When asked to convince the rest of us to come over to their side, neither one could point to any evidence. The Judge explained that jurors are tasked with examining the evidence and not engaging in speculation or possibilities. No one was bullied during our eight hours of jury deliberations, although many of us were frustrated. Being a juror on a murder trial is a civic responsibility I took seriously and is why the overwhelming majority of us took multiple pages of notes, in order to refer back to the many details of testimony.
http://konknet.com/konk-life/contributors/konk-staff
DNA evidence is irrefutable unless there is a procedural violation. Rather than produce another DNA expert, the defense decided to badger the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab expert witness. As a juror, it’s all about the evidence. The victim’s blood was found on the pants and one boot of the defendant. The blood spatter had a void that fit the boot and the boot contained the splatter. The problem was that two of the jurors didn’t believe the witnesses for the prosecution and kept speculating on other possibilities. In fact, after only two hours of deliberation, when 10 of us agreed on the defendant’s guilt, one of those jurors wanted to send a note to the Judge that we were already a hung jury!
As a juror, each one of us has a responsibility to keep an open mind and to pay attention to all of the testimony and evidence presented. During our jury deliberations, we were sequestered. This means we were not allowed to leave the jury room. We discussed the evidence, documenting 26 different items to take into consideration in making our decision. Those two jurors who did not take any notes during the six days of testimony wanted the defendant to be found innocent. The other 10 of us were convinced of his guilt and prepared to spend all night discussing the case. We asked the two to persuade the rest of us to come over to their side. They were unable to point to any evidence that supported their contention of innocence, insisting they did not believe the witnesses. I have no way of knowing why they changed their minds, but it wasn’t because they were bullied. After eight hours of serious discussion, which included a re-examination of evidence in the courtroom, at 11 p.m., we rendered a verdict of guilty of 2nd degree Murder.
[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]
What makes you think you are "setting the record straight"? And how do you know how many notes the other jurors did or didn't take? Were you taking notes on them instead of paying attention to what was going on in the courtroom? From the prosecution's wild speculations and unreliable witnesses (one of which had been a "witness" in two previous murder trials and a suspect in a third, and the other of which had just one day earlier been put in the "hole" because of attacking the defendant after the defendant verbally confronted him about his 14 counts of rape), I would say you weren't paying attention to what was really going down.
Are you aware that in no bully cases do the bullies generally come forward and announce that they were bullying the people they were intimidating (whether school kids or juries)? That is to say, if another witness says she was bullied, it is hardly your place (especially as someone "anonymous' who may very well be the main culprit) to say she didn't feel or experience what she says she felt and experienced.
Was there in fact even any glitter at all on the defendant's hands, as the Prosecution tried to claim? If so, why was there no evidence of that? Furthermore, if there WAS glitter on the defendant's hands, that glitter should have transferred to the large rock he supposedly grabbed and used, if he had grabbed and used it. That is only one of many unbelievable issues that went down in that courtroom — a courtroom in which the defendant's lawyer had been specifically told that there would be no DNA experts at all (because the defendant was being represented by the state, so the state would have had to pay for 2 DNA witnesses), which is precisely why the defendant's lawyer had not prepared such an expert.
I would suggest that next time you get your facts straight, paying more attention to what is going on in the courtroom instead of to other jurors. Perhaps you, too, will then notice some of the same inconsistencies that they saw.