Friday, August 11, 2006

Hung Jury?

Judge Arnold sent them back to deliberate. Stay tuned!

45 comments:

CountryGirl said...

Edited by CG.

Tamiann said:
Oh NO!! Not a hung jury! I am so upset if that turns out to be the case.

No matter what, I DO hope the DA will file charges again and continue to seek justice for Lauren. From what I read, Hum seemingly is passionate in his belief that CB is guilty.

Thanks for letting us all know the latest on this case. Best place to find info is HERE!

Tamiann, email me asap:
realcountrygirl@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

This is extremely sad and frustrating. I feel especially bad for Sarah and her family as they continue to wait.

jonaskinny said...

it may be just too hard for some to put him away for life on indirect evidence... even though they swore they would.

CountryGirl said...

It's not over yet.

Light your candles NOW please!

tamiann said...

CG, I have responded.

Charlie said...

My candle is lit, CG.

holmes said...

Candle lit.

If there is a mistrial, wonder if Patty or his family will pay out another $250,000 for Geragos.

Shannon on J/K show said it would take six months to assign a PD.

loretta said...

Well, Cam Brown isn't going anywhere. That's one consolation. At least he won't be out on bail surfing and drinking fine.

loretta said...

wine...

what happened to that post?! Sorry!

CountryGirl said...

SF reporting the jury sent a note to Judge Arnold 9:30-10am this mornining saying they were deadlocked.

JA brought the jury out and told them it is their duty to deliberate and leave their personal lives out of their decision.

He sent them back in to deliberate.

SF says if they come back again and say they are still deadlocked:

1) JA could ask them if further deliberations would help?
2) JA could ask if there is a specific area of the case that is a problem/issue?

If #2, the lawyers would come back and argue that specific issue. Mark Geragos is in Fresno and not available for #2.

Then if the jury is still deadlocked, it would be declared a mistrial and it will be retried.

SF said if CB's family gets a new laywer, it could take 6 months to get up to speed.

Carri said...

I have one candle burning for Lauren and another one for Sarah.

CG and Loretta,
Thank you for hosting this site and keeping us up to speed.

jonaskinny said...

at which point a lesser charge would most likely be attempted as the prosecuter's office would be under pressure to come back with something on the second pass.

this is pathetic.

Wayne Delia said...

I'm not much for prayers or candle-burning but this is ridiculous. It's the closest thing I've ever followed to an "open and shut case." I can't imagine any reason why this jury should be hung.

Listening to John & Ken (Actually, today it's only Ken), and he says it's pretty sure the case will be re-tried, considering the six years of investigation already invested into it. Might be a six-month delay if the family or Daddy Brown can no longer afford Geragos, who will be too busy laughing all the way to the bank, to give a new lawyer or a PD time to get up to speed to defend with a new jury.

But this needs to get over with soon.

WMD

Carri said...

Funny how Geragos is absent yet again at such a crucial time for his client.

CountryGirl said...

So true Carri!

Lisa said...

Candle is lit.

loretta said...

They still have the option of dismissing a recalcitrant juror or two who will not deliberate or who is not following the law.

It's not over, yet. There are other jury instructions that can be used in these circumstances.

CountryGirl said...

Good point Loretta. I seriously doubt that Judge Arnold will let them hang today.

loretta said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
loretta said...

In case of a jury deadlock, one of the instructions the judge can give the jurors includes the People v Moore (upheld in California appellate court). Here is the Moore instruction and its application to BROWN.

Your goal as jurors should be to reach a fair and impartial verdict if you are able to do so based solely on the evidence presented and without regard for the consequences of your verdict regardless of how long it takes to do so.


In the course of your further deliberations, you should not hesitate to re-examine your own views or to request your fellow jurors to re-examine theirs. You should not hesitate to change a view you once held if you are convinced it is wrong or to suggest other jurors change their views if you are convinced they are wrong.


This instruction advises the jurors to leave their egos, projections, assumptions and speculation at the door of the deliberation room and abandon personality issues. It’s a daunting, if not somewhat unrealistic, order for 12 people, but I compare it to being in an orchestral ensemble. Each musician has his interpretation, tone preference, taste in genre and personal style, but when brought together to play the score, the instruments are subservient to the blend. Imagine if everybody played his part as a soloist, with his own interpretation, dynamics, articulation and intonation. It would not resemble music, but noise.

As I previously instructed you, each of you must decide the case for yourself, and you should do so only after a full and complete consideration of all of the evidence with your fellow jurors. It is your duty as jurors to deliberate with the goal of arriving at a verdict on the charge if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment.

As I previously instructed you, you have the absolute discretion to conduct your deliberations in any way you deem appropriate. May I suggest that since you have not been able to arrive at a verdict using the methods that you have chosen, that you consider to change the methods you have been following, at least temporarily and try new methods.

For example, you may wish to consider having different jurors lead the discussions for a period of time, or you may wish to experiment with reverse role playing by having those on one side of an issue present and argue the other side's position and vice versa. This might enable you to better understand the other's positions.


People do not assimilate information in the same manner. Some people require linear layouts, visual reinforcement, repetition, analogies, or other means of drawing conclusions.

The decision the jury renders must be based on the fact[s] and the law. You must determine what facts have been proved from the evidence received in the trial and not from any other source. A fact is something proved by the evidence or by stipulation.

You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you regardless of whether you agree with the law. If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments or at any other time during the trial conflict[s] with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions.


Other “sources” would include hearsay, attorney questions or argument, alternative theories, assumptions, media commentary, rumor, innuendo, unsubstantiated explanations, and material that was not admitted by the laws of evidence.

Given that this instruction and the law disqualifies the majority of the defense case (and some of the People’s), the jury is prohibited from deliberating all the preposterous hypotheses and Geragos’s attempts to testify for his client (through questioning and hearsay).

jonaskinny said...

that is all well and good but it seems to me that if a week goes by in a case like this it's either acquittal or hung. I can not believe they would acquit.

what's really sad here is that this guy took his daughter to suicide over-hang, threw her off, did not attempt to rescue her, laughed while on the 911 call, lied to police, did not take the stand, spent years in stur and is not convicted.

this is pathetic.

Lisa said...

Very well said and explained, Loretta.

Kent Wills said...

I do hope the jury is able to reach a verdict. Guilty or not, this whole matter needs to be settled.

If they end up a hung jury, we can look forward to another trial in six months. This means another six months of you know who claiming all sorts of conspiracies.

loretta said...

He will have a hard time coming back with anything, since all his lies were revealed in court, regardless of a hung jury.

Anonymous said...

As a friend of Sarah's, I can tell you that each day the jury doesn't come back with a verdict is more painful than the last. Please pray for her and her family that this jury comes to a decision soon. Don't let it drag through the weekend.
Candle lit.

CountryGirl said...

We are and will.

((((Sarah))))

holmes said...

There any many people waiting for the courts to hand down justice for Lauren.

I will pray that God gives Sarah the strength to endure these hurdles.

Anonymous said...

For me, the clincher was "Where is the rock?"

Fred said...

So is there a chance the jury will come back with a verdict over the weekend, or do we have to wait until Monday?

CountryGirl said...

Monday. Then we see if they come to a verdict or if they have an issue or issues that they are deadlocked over and the attorneys argue that/those issues.

peggy said...

Many others are thinking of Sarah and the excruciating tension this waiting is causing.


May Monday be here quickly and may wisdom come to those who lack it by then.

Fbs said...

Many folks are also thinking of Cam too. What if, and I am not saying he is innocent so do not wrongly accuse me of being on his side. For sake of discussion, think if you can how it would feel to be wrongly accused if this was indeed an accident. Please do not send me nastygrams about this, but true thoughts of cases where there was a fine line.

CountryGirl said...

No nastygramp needed; however do you see a web site online (other than Ted's FreeCamBrown, which has NO comment section, BTW) that supports him? Why do you think that is?

Did anyone testify on his behalf other than his mother, brother and a friend who hadn't seen him in 10 years? Where were his co-workers that supported him?

The majority of people here have followed the case and feel he is guilty. His treatment of Lauren was loathsome--even his own mother had to keep and eye on him because he 'allowed' Lauren in dangerous situations. That was his mother's testimony under oath.

Not telling Lauren's mother for 3 years (longer now but he's been incarcerated) what happened to her baby when she begged him to tell her. No, I am NOT thinking of Cameron Brown tonight. I am thinking of the victims tonight. Lauren and Sarah.

lily said...

Thoughts and prayers from the west coast. For Lauren's family and friends, especially Sarah, and for the jurors who have to be having a time that I wouldn't want to be having.

I remember first learning about this case. It was a while back and liked to have broken my heart. That's one of the lonelinest stretches of highway I've ever seen.

I feel ripped off. This beautiful little girl could have discovered the cure for cancer. She could have discovered alternative energy sources or orchestrated world peace. We're a sorrier society for that.

Breezy said...

It seems that many jurors become very confused with the term "reasonable doubt". Defense attornies attempt to convince them that it means "possible" doubt and that crazy thought gets stuck in the jurors mind. Defenders come up with phantom witnesses,mystery vans, sataninc cults, wind sheers and hocus-pocus to invent possible doubt that they can call "reasonable doubt". Some gullible jurors buy it. The process of deliberations is designed to use peer pressure and group intellect to show the gullible one how unreasonable such an excuse is. Unfortunately, our society has too many people unwilling to admit when they are wrong, so we end up with situations where deliberations break down. One or more jurors refuse to deliberate further because they can not see things from any other perspective, doing so would be detrimental to their fragile ego.

This was quickly spotted in the Peterson trial and Juror 6 was removed by the judge. At least he had the sense to realize that he was the problem and admit as much. I hope the holdout here has the same fortitude and respect for the victim.

Kristi said...

I hope there is just ONE lone holdout, maybe someone who refuses to believe a father could throw his young child off a cliff. Someone who views the world with rose colored glasses. :\ I wonder what his or her sticking point is? Is it one specific point in the case?

If there is a hung jury the prosecution will know more about what the jury responded to and what they didn't think was important, and what the hold-out(s) believed. There's a better chance the good guys will succeed the second time around.

I'll be shocked and dismayed if we learn several people, or a majority, were leaning towards not guilty. :\ I don't know how that could be possible. What do they want, a video?! :\ Maybe it's the CSI effect, they expect a ton of physical evidence to prove the case and they think circumstantial == flimsy (which isn't at all true).

loretta said...

Even if she hadn't done anything earth-shaking, since I don't think we are human "doings" but rather human "beings," she still was a special, beautiful person. We are so inured to violence and death, we forget that every life has value.

I believe Lauren is already back in another incarnation. I believe children who are murdered or die young get another shot at being human. I also believe that they don't feel any pain when they die.

Kristi said...

One other thing... When I was a young child I was playing on a beach in Oregon with my parents and brothers. There was a small rocky hill that I watched my older brother scramble up and down. I decided to do the same (of course) and got stuck. I began to panic and cry, I refused to move. My Daddy climbed up after me and helped me down. That's what real Dads do. They help their children out of sticky dangerous situations, they don't lure or throw them into one. :(

loretta said...

Actually Juror 6 was dismissed in Peterson because she did her own research on something online. Juror 5, the original foreman, was a doctor/lawyer and had all sorts of conflict and asked to be taken off the panel. Then there was the original Juror #5, Justin Falconer who was dismissed for pandering to the media.

I am hoping that Judge Arnold does not cave. I hope he re-instructs the jurors, has individual conversations with them to see what's the problem, and if it is a matter of understanding the LAW, he should re-instruct on that.

The hold-out juror in Damien Guererro's case (murder of Kelly Bullwinkle) was simply NOT following the law. She was instructed to choose between not-guilty of murder or guilty of murder; accidental murder (manslaughter) was not an option. This juror continued to insist that she wanted to choose manslaughter and hung the panel.

That was a mistake on the judge's part and the foreperson's part, because they should have removed her.

I hope whoever is holding up this verdict is not misinterpreting the law. That would be grounds for removal. I hope the lawyers and judge are paying attention.

loretta said...

Correction, it was Juror 8 - Fran - who was doing her own research.

All those little details are getting fuzzy after 2 years!

CountryGirl said...

At 8:20 AM, Breezy said...
It seems that many jurors become very confused with the term "reasonable doubt".

True. Some people think it has to be beyond "all" doubt. That, of course, is not the law.

Ronni said...

People don't know what "reasonable" means, any more.

loretta said...

A brief review of "reasonable doubt" and what it means in the law. ^^^^ New Entry.

Anonymous said...

It appears obvious to me after reading all of the posted comments that almost all posters are being driven by their emotions and not any intellectual force. This case is a classic example of resonable doubt. The prosecution had to take the case to trial in spite of the obvious weaknesses. We all commiserate with the families of both sides. Brown may be a miserable lowlife....but the evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt for everyone. Even for a lowlife.

Anonymous said...

I think that this jury will hang, I just wonder if they will retry the case?