ADVERTISEMENT

Graham Spanier shouldn’t serve jail time | PennLive letters (Written by jury foreman)

"Aside from the McAndrew board, where else would you find them?"

Nowhere, and the world is better because of this.
 
I believe he said something similar after the trial:

It is a shame he didn't stand up to the other jurors. I recall seeing other quotes that they (the jury) "just wanted to reach a verdict so they could go home for the weekend" (paraphrase) which is a travesty of justice.
I’ll bet that happens a lot in a ton of trials across the country. People get tired of the process and just want to go home.
 
I’ll bet that happens a lot in a ton of trials across the country. People get tired of the process and just want to go home.
Did you ever watch one of the old westerns that portrayed the legal system and how important defending it was?

We used to teach what made America great. There's a particular Bonanza episode that showed Ben Cartwright imploring his sons to respect the jury result, even to the point of him getting wrongfully hanged.

There was a purposeful point behind the episode.
 
Did you ever watch one of the old westerns that portrayed the legal system and how important defending it was?

We used to teach what made America great. There's a particular Bonanza episode that showed Ben Cartwright imploring his sons to respect the jury result, even to the point of him getting wrongfully hanged.

There was a purposeful point behind the episode.
Unfortunately people take what we have for granted way too often.
 
Of course it does. Have you ever been called to jury duty? The masses are asses.
Half the pool couldn't pass a saliva test.
I’m going to break my “compose a post in under 60 seconds rule” but I’ve been on a jury three times, serving as foreman twice. All three times there were people who had zero concept of what they were there to do. As I mentioned in a previous post, some wanted to punish and some wanted to reward based entirely on emotions, not on the evidence presented. I know I probably sound like a broken record, but my primary job as foreman was to help everyone understand what they were there to do, and I think we made informed decisions based on the information and instructions we were given. Other jurors were instrumental to this eventual success, but it was definitely a learning experience.

In retrospect, most the “problems” were due to decent people who simply didn’t understand that they needed to make a decision based on the evidence presented, even if that meant finding in favor of somebody they didn’t “like.” The rest simply weren’t able to grasp the evidence provided and needed to have it explained in a way that made it understandable. The key, in my experiences at least, isn’t to bully someone into voting a certain way (which is tempting), but to make sure everyone understands their role and responsibility, is able to critically and objectively analyze the evidence provided, make reasonable inferences when necessary, and reach a conclusion/decision within the parameters and instructions given by the judge.

Of course, I wasn’t in that room while they deliberated, but my experience leads me to believe that the Spanier jury probably had some strong personalities on it, and the jury foreman was either unable or unwilling to put in the requisite work and do what he was chosen/elected to do. I also know that how things are supposed to work in theory isn’t how they often work in practice, so there could have been (were?) mitigating circumstances I’m not aware of that impacted how this case turned out. For example, the fact that Spanier’s defense chose not to present a defense tells me that they thought the prosecution so completely failed to make its case that there was no way 12 reasonable people could possibly find him guilty based on the evidence provided.

Maybe they misjudged the jury, or maybe the jury was a bunch of dumbasses. Or maybe something more nefarious happened. Regardless, in the end, Spanier’s life has been turned upside down and Penn State’s reputation further tarnished by 12 people who are basically accountable to nobody.
 
I’ve said that if I ever get charged with a crime, it’s scary knowing that my fate lies with 12 people that weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Not every juror is too dumb to get out of jury duty, and if you ever do go to trial, you better hope your jury has some smart people who also have good people skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mn78psu83
Not every juror is too dumb to get out of jury duty, and if you ever do go to trial, you better hope your jury has some smart people who also have good people skills.

Yes, there are some who still believe that jury service is a civic obligation. Fortunately, I work for a company that encourages it.
 
Not every juror is too dumb to get out of jury duty, and if you ever do go to trial, you better hope your jury has some smart people who also have good people skills.
I agree. While I think (hope) that the poster was being facetious, it really is a civic responsibility to serve. It is important to have a strong jury pool, for reasons which this case make obvious.
 
I agree. While I think (hope) that the poster was being facetious, it really is a civic responsibility to serve. It is important to have a strong jury pool, for reasons which this case make obvious.
Right on! There’s clearly a perception that juries are full of idiots, and sometimes it does seem that way. And sometimes I’m sure it IS that way. But sometimes a jury composed of reasonably intelligent people has to make a decision based on the evidence presented, even if they know that decision isn’t supported by ALL the facts (that some crappy attorney didn’t present). In situations like this, it’s not the jury but the lawyer who is at fault.

This may sound like what happened at Spanier’s trial. And maybe it did. But you’d have to believe his entire defense team was dead wrong which, again, could have happened. After all, look at Sandusky’s defense.
 
Right on! There’s clearly a perception that juries are full of idiots, and sometimes it does seem that way. And sometimes I’m sure it IS that way. But sometimes a jury composed of reasonably intelligent people has to make a decision based on the evidence presented, even if they know that decision isn’t supported by ALL the facts (that some crappy attorney didn’t present). In situations like this, it’s not the jury but the lawyer who is at fault.

This may sound like what happened at Spanier’s trial. And maybe it did. But you’d have to believe his entire defense team was dead wrong which, again, could have happened. After all, look at Sandusky’s defense.

Funny, I also asked why the defense in all of the cases didn't do or ask things that I thought they should have. Maybe they knew things that we don't, or maybe I, at least, have been watching too much TV.
 
Right on! There’s clearly a perception that juries are full of idiots, and sometimes it does seem that way. And sometimes I’m sure it IS that way. But sometimes a jury composed of reasonably intelligent people has to make a decision based on the evidence presented, even if they know that decision isn’t supported by ALL the facts (that some crappy attorney didn’t present). In situations like this, it’s not the jury but the lawyer who is at fault.

This may sound like what happened at Spanier’s trial. And maybe it did. But you’d have to believe his entire defense team was dead wrong which, again, could have happened. After all, look at Sandusky’s defense.
It also depends on the instructions that the judge gives to a jury, and what a judge allows to transpire during the trial. The judge here did not fulfill his duty. At all.
 
It also depends on the instructions that the judge gives to a jury, and what a judge allows to transpire during the trial. The judge here did not fulfill his duty. At all.
Very possible, and I’d think that would be grounds for a successful appeal...which we know didn’t happen.

Probably impossible to ever find out, but it would be interesting to know if the jury foreman asked any questions of the judge during deliberations. Another thing I’d love to see, but I’m sure doesn’t exist, is any notes taken by the jurors. We were allowed to take notes during the trial and when deliberating, but had to leave everything in the courtroom before we were excused. I assume everything was shredded. But maybe not?
 
Last edited:
Having been on a jury, I'd like to see jurors be able to ask questions of witnesses

Apparently that is allowed in some countries

It's frustrating to sit there and think "ask him this, Mr. Lawyer"

Kind of like when Yudichak was asking Erickson questions, had him on the ropes, but didn't go for the kill shot
 
Having been on a jury, I'd like to see jurors be able to ask questions of witnesses

Apparently that is allowed in some countries

It's frustrating to sit there and think "ask him this, Mr. Lawyer"

Kind of like when Yudichak was asking Erickson questions, had him on the ropes, but didn't go for the kill shot
Interestingly, in the US (at least in my jurisdiction), jurors can ask questions of witnesses in the grand jury. This makes serving on a grand jury really interesting (although the time requirement SUCKS).

For a regular trial, I think it would be helpful if jurors could ask clarifying questions, but not start entire new lines of questioning themselves (that would go off the rails really quickly).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keyser Soze 16801
Interestingly, in the US (at least in my jurisdiction), jurors can ask questions of witnesses in the grand jury. This makes serving on a grand jury really interesting (although the time requirement SUCKS).

For a regular trial, I think it would be helpful if jurors could ask clarifying questions, but not start entire new lines of questioning themselves (that would go off the rails really quickly).
I served on a Grand Jury and the questions that I heard asked were a waste of time.

Lawyers don't try perfect cases, but to suggest that people who have never graduated from law school, practiced law or tried a case would contribute anything other than delay by asking questions of witnesses is not grounded in reality.
 
I served on a Grand Jury and the questions that I heard asked were a waste of time.

Lawyers don't try perfect cases, but to suggest that people who have never graduated from law school, practiced law or tried a case would contribute anything other than delay by asking questions of witnesses is not grounded in reality.
I have also served on a grand jury, and I think for the purposes of a grand jury it is an important component of the process. Because there is no "defense team" during grand jury testimony, the ability of jurors to ask questions is helpful and helps prevent the OAG from railroading any cases through (recall, the original and primary purpose of a grand jury is to make sure there is enough evidence to take something to trial. It prevent frivolous charges from being taken to court).

For a regular jury trial, again, I'm not suggesting that jurors be able to start new lines of questioning, but if the witness says something that the juror doesn't understand (or thinks is contradictory within the internal testimony) they should be able to ask for clarification.
 
ADVERTISEMENT