<p>DonnaL, does it concern you? I would have thought that with the number of cases involved, and a verdict having to be made on each one of them, that it would take time just to make sure each juror has the cases and facts pertaining to the straight. I cannot imagine that he will come out of this with most of the charges “not guilty”. He will probably face another trial as well, as it looks like there is a line of other victims not addressed in this case, Matt S, included.</p>
<p>If convicted and sentenced to jail, would the prosecutor still go forward, you think on the next set of charges that must be in the works?</p>
<p>Especially, in this day and age, I’m sure that any juror who really wanted to cheat by sneaking in a handheld device with Internet access could do so. It’s hardly enough anymore just to take the TV sets out of the hotel rooms!</p>
<p>There are enough counts there that the juror’s requests for another look at the McQ part of the case does not mean that some of the other counts have not already been decided. That the victim was not present, that there was some conflicting evidence, might make some of the jurors unsure on what to rule in that case. But there were plenty of charges there where the victims did testify and where it seems very clear, and where the jury seemed horrified and upset. I think he will be put away for a very long time. I hope there is no leak in the Matt Sandusky story, because that could be grounds for a mistrial.</p>
If he gets a long enough sentence it’s unlikely. I think sometimes the DA holds back some potential but weaker cases just in case the main case falls apart.</p>
<p>I was on a jury which asked for a readback. The more we talked about a particular witness’s testimony, the less sure we became of what he had actually said. We got the readback so that we could be certain. It’s also possible that one juror’s notes or memory may conflict with another juror’s, so a readback can settle a difference like that. Or it may be that given the large amount of evidence that was thrown at this jury in a short time, they simply can’t remember a critical detail.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is a bad sign for the prosecution; it may very well be the sign of a conscientious jury. Until proven otherwise, I’m going to assume that they are doing their job and trying to get it right.</p>
<p>Regarding sequestration, this article describes the measures the court has taken to prevent jurors from being influenced by media, social media, and friends and family. The jurors aren’t even allowed to talk to each other about the case outside of the deliberation room. And the judge has asked them to report any suspected outside contact on the part of their fellow jurors.</p>
<p>When looking at the list of charges in post #4643, I’m trying to put myself in the place of a juror and thinking of the process they may use to determine the guilt (or not) of each charge. Can anyone speak to whether or not it is likely that if the jurors found Sandusky guilty of one of the charges for a particular victim, that they would also most likely find him guilty of all of the charges for that particular victim? I’m just trying to get a sense of how much nitpicking they need to go through for each charge. I don’t understand the defintions of each charge, so I was hoping that the jurors could decide guilt (or not) by victim, instead of by individual charge.</p>
<p>Each charge belongs to a particular victim. (On the list, they are called Accusers). Therefore, yes, they decide guilty or not guilty by victim, but for each individual charge per victim.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I was on Grand Jury once, different from a trial jury, but we also had to decide whether to indict by each individual charge. The Grand Jury can hear several cases a day, and we were all there for 4 weeks.</p>
<p>We considered each charge separately, and often decided to indict on some charges, and not on others.</p>
<p>A jury’s deliberations are done in a “black box.” It’s impossible to know if they carefully consider all the charges as they are supposed to, or whether they flip coins. I think it’s likely that often the foreman (or whoever is either the most educated or most dominant person) simply states what the decisions should be and everybody else just agrees. I’d like to think that most juries take their duties seriously (and thus don’t flip coins), but I do think they are likely to defer to one or two jurors.</p>
<p>Hunt, I think a great deal depends upon the personalities of the jurors, and the dynamic of the group. In my jury, there was one count where I and another juror held out against the majority for some time. The two of us did eventually move to the majority opinion, but we definitely didn’t defer; they had to convince us based on evidence. And I was far from the most dominant personality in the room.</p>
<p>Juries are not accountable to anyone for the way they deliberate, and I’m sure there is sometimes bullying and coin-tossing. But I believe that most times, juries do their best to work conscientiously toward a just verdict.</p>
<p>Just finished reading some of the jer lEtters to victim number4. Omg. So weird and creepy. That an adult man would write like that and what he wrote is truly disturbing.</p>
<p>“icant pretend about my feelings and I will always care” calling himself the great pretender that he pretend he can singm but isn’t a pretender when it comes to his feelings…</p>
<p>Thank you goingmyway, for explaining that. I just looked up the definition of each of the charges for accuser 1, and maybe it’s because I am more of a general idea person than a detail person, but all of the charges seem to be very similarly defined. So in my mind, I would think they could look at the charges by accuser, and maybe, just maybe, come to some agreement that would make the process a little less tedious.</p>
<p>I thought I read somewhere that the jury only needed to find him guilty of one of the charges, and he could still be sentenced to 20 years in prison. I wish I could find where I read that, because now it seems too good to be true.</p>
<p>Remember, McQueary’s testimony is for charges relating to a victim who isn’t known, who hasn’t testified. There is rationally a question about convicting him when there is no victim for that charge present. It’s an interesting legal issue as well as a factual one. </p>
<p>McQueary’s testimony has nothing much to do with the other charges. It was corroborated in most respects and serves as generally circumstantial but the main evidence in the other charges is direct testimony by victims.</p>
<p>Amendola gave an impromptu press conference today and said he’d have “a coronary” if Sandusky was acquitted of all charges. Said S. came to court ready to leave for jail. And then Judge Cleland sent an aide to summon Amendola to the courtroom, presumably to remind him of the gag order.</p>