Should a Juror in a high profile trial in the U.S. be able to profit in any way due to the experience?

  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    Jul 05, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    Now that the verdict has been rendered in the Casey Anthony I believe the attention will shift to the Jurors. What were they thinking?


    Enquiring minds will want to know ...right? Particularly in this age of 15 minutes of fame and reality TV.


    I think that Jurors should not be able to profit in any way shape or form. Period.
    It is a slippery slope in my humble opinion. I certainly am not suggesting that any of these Jurors had this in their mind or were mulling over options in their head as this trial went on for weeks. But..... it is plausible...yes...no?

    Anyway, enough about what I think.....what do you think?
    Should Jurors be able to profit in a high profile case?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 10:11 PM GMT
    The question is, will Casey Anthony profit off of it?

    I mean...if she could find a way maybe she would, she's the one who got a tattoo "Bella vita" which means "Beautiful Life" in Italian while her daughter was "missing"...and she was happy....now, if your daughter was missing, why are you getting a tattoo saying Beautiful Life. because life must not be that beautiful when your own child is gone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 10:30 PM GMT
    cold saidIn Australia we have laws preventing jury members from publishing or causing to be published any opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast in the course of the deliberations. We also prevent people soliciting or obtaining these deliberations.

    You don't have similar provisions?

    No. In the US it's all about the money, and everybody has their hand out. Expect to see lots of exploitation over this case. These jurors will shortly be selling their stories, I promise you. Nobody passes up a cash cow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 10:58 PM GMT
    Probably a Lifetime movie will be made...

    "Finding Caylee: The Casey Anthony Story"
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 05, 2011 11:36 PM GMT
    I had no idea jurors could profit from a high profile case. If anything, I'd be more interested in reading literature from either the defense or the prosecutors.

    I'll be honest and say I don't know the details of this case. I remember when the child was initially missing, but that's it. But what you have to remember for a criminal case is that if there is the slightest doubt that the defendant is not guilty, then you should not render a guilty verdict. It's not like a civil case where you only need to tip the scale slightly in your favor.

    Is there anyone to sue her in a civil trial for wrongful death, like the Browns and Goldmans did to O.J. Simpson?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    Well, I do want an insight into their thinking and personally I think the juror system needs more inquiry. Most people don't understand what goes on until they get in the chair.


    They could profit off this, but they had better be careful because Anthony's attorneys will be happy to sue them for libelous statements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    Profit in what way? You mean like sell themselves for interviews and such? Why not? Certainly makes up for lost income while they were serving jury duty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    Why not profit? It's capitalism and helps the economy. Plus many want to know what they think. Not only that... they gave weeks of their life to this case, for what? $5 per day? Yes, milk your 15-minutes for all its worth. icon_biggrin.gif You may not get an opportunity like this ever again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2011 11:53 PM GMT
    Yes. If you are asked to give up all that then by all means. Profit from it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    TerraFirma saidWhy not profit? It's capitalism and helps the economy. Plus many want to know what they think. Not only that... they gave weeks of their life to this case, for what? $5 per day? Yes, milk your 15-minutes for all its worth. icon_biggrin.gif You may not get an opportunity like this ever again.

    Agreed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 12:14 AM GMT
    Look who's profiting off of iticon_razz.gif

    110705entenmanns.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 12:30 AM GMT
    with the lost income while being stuck in jury duty, I say why not.

    I should add that I also like doing jury duty, and i think its a civic duty more people should be willing to do. HOWEVER, some of us have limited cash, and if our employer doesn't pay us for doing jury duty, it might mean the rent wont get paid that month...
  • turtleneckjoc...

    Posts: 4685

    Jul 06, 2011 12:35 AM GMT
    It depends on the individual juror. In the Anthony case, one of the alternates did speak out briefly today, however, everyone else has remained silent.

    The focus is going to be on Casey going forward and we'll see on Thursday if she walks out of the Orange County Jail (we call it 33rd Street) a free woman. If she does, she's in immediate danger......

    I doubt the jurors will benefit from this. Maybe some interviews and profiles from the Tampa Bay/Pinellas County area where they are all from.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    cold said If jurors can capitalise on their experience they might be tempted to make more sensational findings in order to secure an economic windfall.

    If you talked with jurors post-trial you'd be surprised by how seriously they take their obligation to render a true verdict. Obviously some bring more to the table than others in terms of critical thinking and reasoning ability, but with very few exceptions they do their duty as they see it.
  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    Jul 06, 2011 12:58 AM GMT
    cold said
    xrichx saidProfit in what way? You mean like sell themselves for interviews and such? Why not? Certainly makes up for lost income while they were serving jury duty.

    Stan904 said
    TerraFirma saidWhy not profit? It's capitalism and helps the economy. Plus many want to know what they think. Not only that... they gave weeks of their life to this case, for what? $5 per day? Yes, milk your 15-minutes for all its worth. icon_biggrin.gif You may not get an opportunity like this ever again.

    Agreed.

    Dallasfan824 saidYes. If you are asked to give up all that then by all means. Profit from it.


    Nobody is going to pay for a boring or predictable trial story, however an unexpected or controversial decision makes for good media and makes for rich jurors. If jurors can capitalise on their experience they might be tempted to make more sensational findings in order to secure an economic windfall.


    Note from the Op:
    I am with you Cold and I am kind of surprised how many people say "by all means profit". If the problem is lost wages for example, well then we need to compensate jurors more for their time. But to profit from the experiences of the trial?

    According to today's Hollywood Reporter:

    Meanwhile, it also could be to their financial benefit to keep the mouth shut for now: Networks and tabloid outfits are likely to pursue the jurors with lucrative offers to tell their stories, as in other high-profile cases like the 1995 murder trial of O.J. Simpson.
    The jurors included a high school teacher, a counselor, an information-technology employee, a nursing student, an unemployed log-yard worker, a cell-phone service rep and a part-time cook at a grocery store.


    Many will have agents by tomorrow morning in my humble opinion....not good.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:02 AM GMT
    Well let's face it, if somebody was able to profit off of the Diane Downs case almost 30 years ago (Small Sacrifices, anybody?), and OJ was able to profit off of his trial 15 or 16 years ago, then sadly it's definitely going to happen with Casey Anthony.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 06, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    What I don't understand is how is Casey Anthony going to survive? Forget the financial aspect, I would think she could be in physical danger and need bodyguards. Where will she go once she is out of jail? She threw her parents under the bus, so they probably aren't an option. Even if she does get a movie deal, that money won't last forever.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jul 06, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidWhat I don't understand is how is Casey Anthony going to survive? Forget the financial aspect, I would think she could be in physical danger and need bodyguards. Where will she go once she is out of jail? She threw her parents under the bus, so they probably aren't an option. Even if she does get a movie deal, that money won't last forever.


    Perhaps more facts will emerge... to people who are open minded enough
    to accept them.

    No doubt we will hear from the jurors....eventually. I heard several of the alternates were willing to speak....as far as profit. My assumption here is
    some will profit. It can't be prevented at this time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:13 AM GMT
    Yeah, let the jurors profit from it. After all, this IS a capitalist society.

    PS. After seeing her parents' reactions (or lack thereof) when the verdict was given, I kinda think they may have played a role in the child's death. It's like they were hoping to see their daughter put away so they could be off the hook.
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Jul 06, 2011 1:14 AM GMT
    My theory is that if someone is going to pay for it then I might as well get paid for it! haha
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:14 AM GMT
    @Cold,

    Your scenario would require that all twelve adopted a strategy that would increase their market value as authors after the trial. If twelve average people who are fulfilling an unsolicited civil service can do that, then we are screwed anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidIt's America, baby!

    It's all about:

    11240282452055483059.png


    Unfortunately....that is very true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:39 AM GMT
    ^ Those are good points, but it would still have to take place in a very high profile case....those only come along once in a while.

    Besides, where do you draw the line? Should famous prosecutors be able to write autobiographies and discuss well-known cases? Or judges and justices who have retired from high courts? Not an easy question, IMO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:41 AM GMT
    cold said - 1 persuasive jury member influences the others in a 'hard' case
    - 1 stubborn jury member prolongs the trial
    - 2 or 3 jury members tip the scales in a 'hard' case

    The verdict has to be unanimous. If all 12 can't agree the judge will declare a mistrial and the case may be retried with a new jury.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 1:43 AM GMT
    Anyone complaining about the jurors should shut up. First they had to be shelved away for god knows how long. There wasn't enough evidence to convict her and you want to complain about how a killer gets away. I would much rather have a killer on the streets than an innocent person in jail (I'm not saying she is innocent but if we convicted everyone based on assumptions rather than cold hard facts, we would have alot more innocent people in jail).