Welcome to Kaycee And The Forefront, the mostly weekly page where Steve Kaycee brings world issues to the forefront.
This page is on a six-week hiatus until September 21, 2020.
So until then, you can still see To Accountability And Possibly Beyond: Part 5.
Thank you for understanding.
“To Accountability And Possibly Beyond: Part 5”
Previously in Kaycee And The Forefront, I shed a little bit of light about both my experience as a juror and serving on a case with a fellow juror, the latter of whom was dishonest with the judge about whether she could serve or not.
Now I did say that I won’t mention specifics of the case, but I will say that it occurred in the state of New Hampshire and that it had sentencing guidelines that were on par with criminal case sentencing guidelines. And while I don’t know if all 50 states have to have the unanimous 12-0 verdict in acquitting or convicting the defendant in cases with criminal case sentencing guidelines, I will say that the verdict in that case was 11-1 for acquittal, with that 1 being from that dishonest juror.
Of course, I’m the first to admit my hard-edged mentality when it comes to defendants, as I’ve heard too many heinous things in my life to not really think otherwise. However, that mentality won’t blind me from studying both the details of a case and the tactics that attorneys use, i.e. the way that Mike Nifong went after those Duke lacrosse players and George Zimmerman’s defense team character smearing of the late Trayvon Martin.
Instead, I look for whatever I can for the sake of wanting right to be right, such as that case that I served on. And based on what I studied during that case, I voted not guilty because of what added up for that to happen, as did 10 other jurors.
Of course, one has to wonder how someone, such as that woman, can be so dishonest about having no qualms about serving on that case before the fact. Especially when she had qualms about it during deliberation. I mean there is an impartial jury for a reason yet she was anything but impartial. And while I don’t want to sound like an ignorant asshole about her state of mind, I got the impression that she illustrated why the U.S. jury system leaves a lot to be desired. And while this is pure conjecture at this point, I can only imagine what she’d be like as a juror in a case where it’s actually way more stacked up against the defendant(s). Especially if the defendant(s) were/are people such as Derek Chauvin. I truly hope she isn’t someone that thinks that all police officers are good, right or wrong. But if she is someone who is that, along with someone who thinks that all men are guilty of charges exact and/or similar to the ones that we heard as jurors back in early/mid-March of 2013, then that could only be just the tip of yet another iceberg.
To be continued.