<p>It isn’t a concern if a jury takes time to go over the charges. They should. I was on a jury in a federal case involving guns and explosives. We went over the charges one by one. You need to interpret what each charge involves. The list of charges is really long. </p>
<p>BTW, it is more typical for a quick jury to mean acquittal. You go in and take votes. If it’s a one or two charge case and you all vote for acquittal, you’re done. </p>
<p>Also BTW, to show how well juries can work, we “nullified” a law: the law said (says?) you can’t own a hand grenade without it being registered by serial number but the things don’t have individual serial numbers. The boxes have a number. Couldn’t convict the guy of breaking a law he couldn’t adhere to. We also, after a significant amount of discussion, realized the defense had missed an important piece of evidence, that a defaced serial number on one gun was so tiny we could barely see it without a magnifier. That created reasonable doubt the guy knew it was defaced and intent was a necessary element of the crime. Juries do think.</p>
<p>Well, some do. We have all seen cases in which the jury truly blows it. Although i do understand that it is very different being inside the situation than it is for those of us on the outside of the courtroom.</p>
<p>I’m not bothered by the jury deliberating for 7 hours. They’re doing their job. They have, what, 48 counts to consider. They’re going over the evidence carefully, as they are supposed to do. It would disturb me a lot more if they’d brought back 48 verdicts within a couple of hours. That would have meant they’d made up their minds before they went into deliberation.</p>
<p>I know this is probably a stupid question but when a jury deliberates in a trial like this one, do they have to go over each and every charge separately and come to a decision on that specific charge? If that is the case, how can they remember the evidence on each and was evidence even introduced to support all 48 charges?</p>
<p>I would imagine Sandusky has the best chance of being innocent of the charges relating to Victim 2, the one McQueary witnessed:
</p>
<p>The victim has not come forward, it’s all on McQueary’s word. Dranov’s testimony didn’t seem all that damaging to me, but it may be enough for reasonable doubt, at least on some of the charges.</p>
<p>I was wondering about that as well…considering he is the only case with an eye witness it is somewhat mysterious he hasn’t come forward.</p>
<p>the key reason it distressed me that victim 2, (the boy McQueary saw abused) was left with Sandusky after the witnessed sexual abuse, was my concern regarding what Sandusky would then do to that boy. Obviously he knew he had been witnessed, so he may have been even more threatening than he might have been about “not telling anyone”. It wouldn’t surprise me if Sandusky considered getting rid of the boy as one of the accused priests did in Texas. </p>
<p>I agree with mommusic. I’m not sure what the point is of ANY witness testimony in any trial if it is considered a case of one person’s word against another.</p>
<p>I really think it is not at all surprising that victim 2 has not come forward. It is actually surprising to me that so many others have. Victim 2, in particular, has had a great deal of notoriety and the fact that his abuse was witnessed and that he was left there with Sandusky, even after being seen, may have left him with an even deeper sense of guilt and shame.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I would be willing to step into the limelight if it were me. He may also feel that the crime is being dealt with and that he is not needed. Perhaps he even buried the memory. Every person responds differently and those responses are not necessarily predictable or even sensible.</p>
<p>I doubt that Sandusky killed the boy, if that is what you are wondering about Myturnnow. Wouldn’t someone have missed him?</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting he did, simply saying that is why it was so important for the child to have been rescued at the scene. why I can’t understand anyone waiting a day, two days, 10 days to address what was seen.</p>
<p>but given the possibility of this, wouldn’t someone have missed him? well, yes his family, but that was 10 years ago, and it is not outside the realm of possibilities for that to have gone unnoticed relative to this case.</p>
<p>I saw an interview with one of Sandusky’s “alleged” victims on MSNBC. It was so painful to watch, especially because they showed photos of this man as a young boy. I can’t imagine that the jury will do anything but convict, at least on a majority of the counts. It’s possible that they will find that the standard of beyond reasonable doubt was not met on a few of them.</p>
<p>I’m not surprised that it is taking so long. They have to discuss each count and come to a decision.</p>
<p>I was concerned when I read that Matt Sandusky publicly admitted he was also molested after the jury started deliberations. Is the jury sequestered? I don’t like the idea of the jury learning this information through the media after they start deliberations. It is very prejudicial… grounds for a mistrial?</p>
<p>Victim 2 could be dead, overseas in the military, in jail, there are any number of reasons why he didn’t testify. There’s also he might have blocked it out.</p>
<p>The jury is always instructed to stay away from newspapers/other media for the entire duration of the trial. I don’t see how this would be any different. Any juror could be introduced to prejudicial information at any point if they are not sequestered or if they willfully seek out information/don’t take steps to insure they don’t get access to media reports.</p>