River Oaks Woman Escapes From Kidnappers

[kmatwill]

What was the most compelling evidence? Did the three jurors state why they did not vote to convict?

The most compelling evidence was:

1) The victim identification of the defendant by photo-spread and line-up and perpetrator 1 by photo-spread.

2) Eyewitness identification of the defendant by video line-up by a construction contractor in the neighborhood that witnessed the event initially from 75-50 ft away, then ran toward the commotion as it occurred. Closest distance wasn't provided to the jury. He identified the same two perpetrators as the victim. The person that lifted her into the trunk by her upper torso (defendant) and the person that lifted her by her legs (perpetrator 1)

3) The defendant's DNA found on the passenger door handle in the rental car used in the kidnapping.

4) The DNA on the cell phone dropped at the scene by perpetrator 1.

5) Eyewitness testimony that the defendant was associates with perpetrator 1.

6) Eyewitness identification by a resident of the neighborhood who was out walking his dog of perpetrator 1 and perpetrator 2.

7) Video evidence of perp 1 and 2 renting the car.

8) Video of interview of defendant saying that he has never even seen the car used in the kidnapping. The detective even offered him reasons that could've explained his DNA in the car, such as dealing drugs through the window. By the way, he already copped to being a dealer.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

The jurors that voted not-guilty:

1 - During deliberations, gave a rather passionate accounting of what was perceived by the rest of us to be his friend being wrongly accused by the police of domestic abuse against his girlfriend. He clearly correlated his story to this case and thought that it was possible that the police fabricated the evidence. This for him wouldn't put his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2 - During deliberations, told a story in a rather aggravated way about how one of her friends or her brother? was wrongly accused of a crime because he looked like the person that did it. She also agreed with juror 1 that the evidence could've fabricated by the police.

3 - This is the one I had the hardest time wrapping my head around. He was a seemingly rational and educated. He was convinced that the police could've biased the witnesses into picking the same people. He said that if it were a civil trial, he could've convicted, but the defendants guilt wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt for him.

Edited March 31, 2011 by kmatwill

[RedScare]

Wow. This doesn't sound like reasonable doubt. This sounds entirely like a mistake in jury selection. Cell phone at the scene with DNA? That's pretty damning, even if you do have doubts on the eyewitness identification. The good news is that you can bet that they won't end up with 3 jurors like this in the next trial.

[20thStDad]

Wow. This doesn't sound like reasonable doubt. This sounds entirely like a mistake in jury selection. Cell phone at the scene with DNA? That's pretty damning, even if you do have doubts on the eyewitness identification. The good news is that you can bet that they won't end up with 3 jurors like this in the next trial.

After my one crappy jury experience, I'm not sure I share your faith in my peers. Then again it was the victim and defendant (and defense lawyer) who were the real idiots. Everyone on my jury agreed that the whole thing was the biggest was of everyone's time. I do hope they find 12 people who do the right thing.

[Dub]

While my experience was not of the magnitude kmarts was, when our jury idiot started their ranting and raving over perceived police mistakes and calling for acquittal they quickly changed their tune when I pulled a book from my pocket and told him when he was ready to have a rational conversation to let me know. Funny how quickly some people can change their tune when faced with having to come back downtown tomorrow and possibly the day after.