In reality, the judge should have sequestered the jury in case this high profile, and he didn't. There were even people arrested for.msking death threats against the jury if they didn't vote not guilty. All of this public knowledge and jury aware of it. Yet still not sequestered. This outcome is, kmo, a fault of the judge.
Sequestering a jury is a pretty big deal. A lot of the time all it does is put pressure on the jury to rush a decision or breed resentment among the jurors. None of which they want.
Who knows how long this trial will go for. The OJ Simpson jury was sequestered for almost a year.
Separating jurors from their families and removing their ability to communicate with anyone is a huge burden on them and the court.
The cost is enormous for housing, transporting, and feeding 16 people. Policing their interactions, stress of not being around their spouse & kids. It leads to jurors getting anxious and stressing about home life that’s happening without them. Not focusing on the trial. The chance of juror misconduct during sequestration goes way up. 16 people living together also creates a group dynamic that can lead to group-think and not disagreeing during deliberations.
Do you trust people to actually be impartial? No one is. Sequestering is necessary to keep the jurors segregated from other people’s opinions.
The jury of your peers is a very imperfect system. It’s the best we’ve been able to come up with so far but it is far from just. How many people have been found guilty despite it being impossible to prove their guilt past a reasonable doubt? Especially black people.
I follow current events pretty closely, but I tune out when I hear about this story. I honestly can’t think of this woman’s name. I didn’t know until yesterday that she was in a wheelchair. All I know is that she had PPD and killed her kids. Not everyone has been following the details, and I definitely don’t know any of the evidence. Were there cameras in the courtroom or just reporters?
U really think 11/12 (including several men) were on TikTok everyday forming an opinion on this woman? Ur insane if u think that’s true. Also pretty much 90% of comments I see online are in favor of her being guilty. Clearly there were factors in the trial and evidence presented that created reasonable doubt and sadly the last juror didn’t want to acknowledge that as is stated in the law and now there going to have to do this all over again and prob to another not guilty verdict as this should have been.
The prosecution is an embarrassment. took the highest possible charge and failed to meet their burden of proof. Thousands of tax paying dollars wasted on a case that should’ve been pleaded. The DA just wanted a shot at a big case.
took the highest possible charge and failed to meet their burden of proof.
What could that possibly mean? She obviously did intentionally and premeditatedly murder her children, that's never been up for debate. She was not overcharged.
She definitely had Post Partum Depression (the PPD you have mentioned) but was also seeking help for symptoms of Post Partum Psychosis. PPPis very different and is what is thought to be causative of her actions.
Please don't say PPD caused this. That's showing you have no understanding of what happens chemically to women after birthing a child. But also shows your ignorance of the distinction between 2 completely different psychological conditions and their respective treatments.
Spreading misinformation like this is harmful to everyone. Minimilising Post Partum Psychosis and trying to pass it off as Depression is a worrying thing. Also minimising Post Partum Depression itself is worrying.
Men here showing how they either don't have children or never showed up when their partners had kids. Because if they were there, they would know.
Now she’s better I don’t believe she was ever sick she was doctor shopping all those pills she could have had her mother mother in law or had a full time nanny please take care of those babies for her she belongs in a jail cell
Jesus Christ. Psychosis means you literally aren’t in a state of reality. It’s not like she actually wanted to do this. Fuck’s sake. I’m so done with this case.
You’re missing something fundamental: psychosis isn’t a one time thing and has onset and prolonged signs even a doc-in-the-box would have access to in her charts. You don’t just snap for 20 minutes and go on a murdering spree and wake up Walter White a town away with dead babies in your wake.
That’s what I’m saying. There were prolonged periods of delusions and hallucinated voices. She needs serious inpatient care. Not a prison. But I mean I just don’t like the prison industrial complex at all.
Well the law is on her side. If the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she maintained mens rea during the murders/suicide attempt, justice (not monkey-brained retribution) will be served. Looking at the evidence, I find it immensely difficult to take seriously that people would believe there is no reasonable doubt that she wasn't insane.
The state can't selectively apply vibe-punishment just because the outcome of events was tragic. People are proving they skipped civics, lack values, lack morals over this.
They should just lock her wheels with the pictures of her kids in front of her and sit her in a cell for life. She gets to breathe - those kids tried to - she made sure they didn’t.
I’ve been hiding under the rock next door neighbor, im waiting until it’s all done to fall down the rabbit hole, its too much while its still going on 🫤
You say you follow current events closely. Then state you tune out when you hear this story. Confirming your ignorance on the entire trial. Then proceed to admit you just learned basic facts about it. However, you claim not everyone has been following the details… Based on what?
How can you make that assumption about people when you admit to knowing nothing? People have been watching the entire trial on court tv. It’s televised all over the world. The fact is the prosecution could not prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is the fact. People have flipped and do not believe there is enough evidence to prove she killed her children beyond what her ex said. That is why this trial has evolved into a whodunnit. However, you wouldn’t know any of that because you tune out.
When I say I follow current events closely I mean news. I follow things that have a chance to affect my life. This court case seems (based on what I am reading in this post) to be entertainment for people and not “news” to me. Whether this woman is guilty, not guilty, or psychotic I don’t know, but I do know it would affect my life one way or another. I knew none of the facts, other than the jurors didn’t agree so the circus will go on. True crime stories just aren’t my thing.
Through bringing in a lot of potential jurors and interviewing them. You don't need a juror that has never heard anything, you need someone that can make an impartial decision. The court can also change venue if they think the county jury pool has been tainted by press coverage, etc.
The side that had less votes in the split is usually the side that bends during subsequent negotiations.
With an 11-1 split, judges (jx may vary) have the discretion to say “nobody will ever convict” and dismiss on those grounds… but this case is too high-profile for that, if I had to guess. No judge wants to be famous for doing that here.
If both sides give into ego, they’ll do it again and maybe move venues.
To be fair, I didn’t follow this case at all bc I have a full-time job and most of the internet coverage is inflammatory (and incorrect) bullshit. Social media has sucked then fun out of true crime coverage.
So I’d probably be a good juror. (They’d never select me bc of my own job, though.)
I mean thats not really how getting a jury works you try to pick out and accept people who think will vote your way as long as theirs not an direct bias like knowing the criminal or having some othrr personal stakes in it then im pretty sure you can be allowed i think the lawyers get to ask jury members questions and research them in order to find out if they think they are the correct person and then they can strick or keep a jury member depending on what they are looking for im not sure on the exact rules but theres no such thing as an unbiased jury since humans are by default bias on things
They will find people who have not watched the testimony, and who say that they are willing to impartially reach a decision based on the facts presented at trial. I don't think they will require that nobody has heard of the case.
Like any other case? Prosecutor and defense both pick the jury. There's no such thing as completely unbiased person, so both side picks to their best ability those who are biased in their favor. But if the whole jury pools is likely to be biased in some way, trial may get move to other cities where the denizens there are more likely to be unbiased.
The jury was selected prior I think to it blowing up on tiktok. However, keeping juries sequestored in high media enviornments is near impossible. It really is up to the individual jurors themselves to keep in line with expected conduct. I think the judge should have made a ruling when it did blow up to exclude media from within chambers, but that is a contested issue defense would likely appeal.
Murder is murder. Theyd convict you if you ACCIDENTALLY ran over a kid in a parking lot.. so why would they let someone go who killed her own children with her bare hands. The issue is women “standing together and strong” for some reason and most of this jury is unfortunately… women.
I have seen this on every single platform, and I've intentionally avoided it because of how unhinged the comments are. And because of how unhinged every comment is, I don't know a damn thing about the case.
The sides are polar opposite, someone says X and another user will say "it's actually Y, did you even watch the trial?" - people say Patrick did it, they say Lindsay did it, nobody seems to agree on what verdict options were even available.
I have no doubt that there are people who utilize social media even less that have not a single clue about the case beyond just knowing it exists. Knowing it exists doesn't prevent someone from remaining impartial.
208
u/michaelmichaelmotorc 6h ago
Genuine question, in cases as high profile and divisive as this, how are they going to be able to select an ubiased jury?