I saw today on the News they were picking Jurers for the 2 accused of the killings last yr.
Would you be able to serve jury duty in this case or not?
Would you be able to go in with the trial thinking there is NO chance they did the killings?
I don't think personally I think I could. There is so much evidence how can anyone not say they they think there might be a chance they did't do it.?


(Edited to fix rather funny typo...you guess which one - Jaime)

I think I could actually be a fair juror in that trial. I do understand it is important that the state prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I am curious about the following statement you make, Momof3.....




Why do you think this mindset is necessary to be a fair juror, or did I misread your statement?

There's been lots of press coverage, for sure, but I don't see how that constitutes "evidence". It certainly doesn't present a case for the defence, for instance.

I don't think that jurors need to be able to go into the trial saying that they think there is NO chance that they accused men are guilty. Rather, they need to be able to conclude that from the evidence presented at trial.

But, if you're that worried, the jury could be made fairer by the simple expedient of selecting a jury exlusively of American Muslims. I don't believe that they would automatically side with the defendants, but they wouldn't assume guilt on the basis of religion or skin colour, which I fear the mainstream media coverage has done and which, in turn, a random jury might tend to do.

There has been quite a bit of media coverage on this, and in my opinion so much so that there is some type of preconcieved notion that yes they are guilty. I know that I would have a harder time being impartial because of the media coverage and how the story has been presented. It would be tough to be a juror and say I can make this decision without recalling any of my previous thoughts or influences.

Aquilla, that is my question. I know they have to be convicted without unreasonable doubt. Marqie has stated what I think most people feel. Do you think you can be a jurer and be impartial?
You say you can and I believe you could but what I wanted to know do you think most people could be able to be impartial?

After all the sensational media coverage and evidence leaked so far, I am pretty sure these two are guilty...and outside a court of law...I am entitled to my opinion and can even state it. Right now...I hope when the time presents itself, the jurors elect to impose the severest form of justice allowable in this case for these two evil dudes. However, if I were called to serve on the jury, I think I could put my opinion and emotions on hold until all the evidence is in. If I had any doubt whatsoever, I would ask to be excused before I would serve on a jury out of revenge instead of duty.

Ok, I see where you were going with that now, and it's a good question. I certainly can't speak for most people, really can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have been on a couple of juries through the years. Most of the people serving with me seemed to have come in with a pre-conceived belief that the person being charged in the crime is probably guilty, their logic running along the lines of "they wouldn't be going to all this trouble if he didn't do it".

However, once the trial began, those people paid pretty close attention to what was being said and what was being presented. They listened to everything, some even taking notes and they took their job seriously, VERY seriously. I was on one case that took them 2 days to present and took us 3 days to deliberate. People pulled out their notes and we discussed each and every issue that came up. It was quite an enlightening process to me. Those people really wanted to do the right thing and quite frankly, some of them put up a better case for the defendant than his lawyer did. Those experiences really strengthened my belief in the the jury system.

So, to answer your fundamental question, I think these two guys can get a fair trial based on nothing else other than my very limited personal experience.

My posting the quote below doesn't change the debate issue, but serves as an update on Malvo/Muhammad case as of 11/12/2003...and leaves the jurors stuck with the responsibility of imposing the death penalty if the jury votes guilty and the level of guilt that is punishable by death.

Judge: "Malvo and Muhammad 'involved in Purposeful Shootings ... Perfected Ability to Shoot" - Associated Press 11/12/03

The above was the Judge's response in denying the defense team's request to strike the death penalty.

I have served on quite a few juries, but never one with a death penalty.

I would defiently not be a fair juror in their trial because of their method of killing people. They shoot innocent people from far away like scared cowards with no sense of morals. Typical of terrorists.