This is a double whammy, because through their own stupidity, they have the power to let killers go free, and additionally, lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives.

I think this would be an interesting dicussion. Which cases had the dumbest juries?

Here would be my picks off the top of my head.

1. Michael Scott Martin ~ This is one of those cases I've discussed at length on here, so some of you probably already know my feelings on it, so I won't repeat them here. But the jury taking only 15 minutes to put MSM behind bars for life (he got out after 20 though)? Only in Texas...

2. Donnie Hansen ~ Mounds of evidence pointed to Donnie being responsible, but the jury lets him go. Were they waiting for a handwritten confession?

3. The Dowalibys ~ Thankfully, he got out. This was a bitter jury that was ready to see someone hang. I don't know if the UM segment mentioned it or not, but I watched the American Justice episode recently and one of the jurors said that if they tried Cynthia Dowailby, they would have convicted her too.

Eileen Mangold case- This poor lady's killer was acquitted when HIS DNA WAS FOUND ON HER BODY. Worst jury ever!

Interesting discussion topic.

Although I might caution that "hindsight is 2020". Moreover, I don't think juries are entirely to blame. Prosecutors and defense attorneys can implement strategies that backfire, or not use others that may help their cause. New information or evidence that was previously unavailable to a jury that rendered an "unjust" conviction or acquittal may become known after the fact, etc.

For example, with regard to Michael Scott Martin, I have long thought that
he was convicted of robbing the gas station because the jury was biased after hearing about his prior offense. Martin's defense had opportunities to stop this information from reaching the jury. Rather, they chose to be open about Martin's record. No doubt it was a well intentioned strategy, but it likely backfired here.

The jury that convicted Patricia Stallings never got to hear how her second son was diagnosed with MMA.

The juries that convicted Luis Diaz didn't have access to the DNA evidence that would eventually clear him.

Michael Lloyd Self's jury never heard that two of the police officers who obtained Self's alleged confession were bank robbers.

Reloando Cruz's juries never heard Brian Duggan's confession.

I'm sure there are other examples, but those are the most egregious I can think of. It is interesting to note how much these cases change if the key elements above are not heard/revealed.

Looong time lurker, first time poster, and fan of the show since the beginning. Love reading about these old cases and the varied opinions. Anyway...

I have always been a serious "law and order" guy, but my one experience on a jury was an eye-opener. It involved an attempted rape, and the investigation conducted by the police and the case presented by the prosecution was so woefully inept that most of us on the jury were thoroughly disgusted by it. The foreman and I asked to meet with the judge to tell him just how poorly it was handled and how it should never have come to trial (of course, the judge refused). Was the guy guilty? I honestly don't know..most of the jurors believed he "probably" was, but I don't know how much of that was logical supposition and how much was a certain amount of cultural bias. His guilt or innocence could have been proved with a little more diligence on either the police's or prosecutor's part, but apparently no one put forth the effort. He spent 6 months in jail awaiting trial because he was indigent and his public aid attorney was out of commission for awhile due to health problems. So, either an attempted rapist was released or an innocent man sat in jail. Obviously, this is not as "big" a case as some of the others you hear and talk about, but it was pretty educational to me.

But yes, some jurors are clueless. Among the "players" in the case were two sisters that did not get along, and the mother clearly favored one sister over the other - and one juror was basing some of her conjecture on the fact that she could not believe that a mother would have a "favorite" child.

Well, I'd like to single out one particular juror in the Walter Ogrod case. At his first trial, the jury had apparently found Ogrod not guilty for the murder of Barbara Jean Horn and the foreman was about to read the verdict until this one juror stood up and said he didn't agree with the verdict. A mistrial was declared and Ogrod was found guilty at his second trial even though it's likely that he's probably innocent and another child killer is being allowed to walk free. Even if Ogrod really was guilty, you just DO NOT play with everyone's emotions like that and change your mind in the courtroom as the verdict's being read!

This isn't UM-related, but here's a case of a lazy jury acquitting a guilty murderer simply because they wanted to get home before the Christmas holidays, and the judge was so disgusted that he wrote a letter of apology to the victim's family! After the acquittal, new evidence surfaced that proved beyond a doubt that this guy committed the murder, but of course, he couldn't be tried again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

Hi MadGoblin! Nice to meet you! :wave:

Robin, I remember the Ignatow case. The details are horrific, but I had forgotten about the jury acquitting because their civic duty interfered with their social calendar. Gah! What were those people thinking? He planned the murder way in advance, including making sure the location was sort of soundproof. That's a dangerous person to let run free.

First off -- MadGoblin, welcome to the board! :wave:

As to the topic at hand, while on one hand I would agree with you, Wiseguy, I also have to say that like MadGoblin I've had an experience on a jury and it was interesting.

Off the top of my head, I would agree 100% on Donnie Hansen. I remember seeing that case for the first time and thinking, "What? The? Hell???" when I heard he was found not guilty. But after serving on a jury, I realized that it is more on the prosecutor and it also depends what the charges were and how they are explained to a jury. In the Hansen case, I still think there was ample evidence to find him guilty. With some of the others though, it really depends. I would hate to call a jury clueless when I wasn't there for the whole trial and didn't hear the whole case.

While we are at it, I always laugh when the verdict comes back not guilty and the person on trial says "I was found innocent." No, you weren't. Innocent means you did NOTHING wrong. Not guilty means you weren't convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Big difference there.

Eileen Mangold's case OWNS THIS THREAD.

Can someone's semen really be found on your DEAD body and still get away with your murder? Apparently in Florida!

Not a UM case, but might as well be:

Casey Anthony: Seemed so obvious that she didn't care baby Caylee was dead. She waited a MONTH before she reported her missing. During that time, she was out goofing off and avoiding contact with her parents. During the search for Caylee, she led the police on several goose chases.
Caylee's dead body wasn't found until December 2008, six months after her disappearance. There was evidence that Casey was researching a possible way of making Caylee's death look like an accident, and the smell of death was found in her car trunk during the search.

Yet in spite of all this, Casey was only found guilty of lying to the police, a meager sentence which was already served leading up to her trial.

What I thought was really dumb was that they didn't make her testify during her trial. Chances were high she would've told another terrible lie about it, but that would've been all the evidence they needed to convict her.

What I thought was really dumb was that they didn't make her testify during her trial.
I agree that Casey was guilty, but no one can make a defendant testify at their trial - not even Judge Perry could have demanded Casey do that.

Not a UM case, but might as well be:

Casey Anthony

And her annoying attorney Jose Baez is so slimy. That whole process was such a farce, I don't even know why they bothered.

Interesting discussion topic.

Although I might caution that "hindsight is 2020". Moreover, I don't think juries are entirely to blame. Prosecutors and defense attorneys can implement strategies that backfire, or not use others that may help their cause. New information or evidence that was previously unavailable to a jury that rendered an "unjust" conviction or acquittal may become known after the fact, etc.

There may be no better example than the OJ Simpson case. Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi was particularily critical of the prosecution for a number of reasons; one of them was their decision to omit crucial pieces of evidence. Among them were the police interrogation tape in which Simpson made some incriminating statements, the so-called suicide note, and the items found in the Bronco following the slow speed chase (including a cheap disguise, a passport, and a large amount of money).

Bugliosi was told that all this evidence was excluded because the prosecution didn't want the jury to know that Simpson had denied guilt. Needless to say, Bugliosi thought that was ridiculous since he knew full well that the jury already knew that Simpson denied guilt, which was why a trial was taking place.

Check out this link, which analyzes a variety of statments made by OJ Simpson after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/oj-simpson/

I'd have to agree with the Michael Scott Martin case. 5 different witnesses placed him in an area that would have been impossible for him to have committed that robbery, and he still got convicted.

1. Michael Scott Martin ~ This is one of those cases I've discussed at length on here, so some of you probably already know my feelings on it, so I won't repeat them here. But the jury taking only 15 minutes to put MSM behind bars for life (he got out after 20 though)? Only in Texas...

Wiseguy I'd be interested in your take on the fact that the prosecutor was able to enter evidence of MSM's grocery store conviction into the the court records.

The prosecutor mentions in the segment that he felt that the fact that the previous conviction did quite a number on the jury in establishing the guilt of MSM. Do you think that this was the reason they took such a short time to deliberate on his fate or do you think it was just a slipshod jury to begin with?

Wiseguy I'd be interested in your take on the fact that the prosecutor was able to enter evidence of MSM's grocery store conviction into the the court records.

The prosecutor mentions in the segment that he felt that the fact that the previous conviction did quite a number on the jury in establishing the guilt of MSM. Do you think that this was the reason they took such a short time to deliberate on his fate or do you think it was just a slipshod jury to begin with?

Admittedly, if the person is a career criminal and/or has committed similar offenses, then I would probably support their rap sheet being entered into evidence. I would be uncomfortable if a jury based their decision solely on the person's prior offenses or claims thereof, but if it is one part of a case and their is significant evdience otherwise to prove their guilt, then their jury is probably right if they return a guilty verdict.

In regards to MSM, this was his only other prior "offense" Something I've touched upon in the past but never elaborated on was that MSM's 2 supposed offenses were so different from each other. With the grocery store incident, he never went there intending to bother anyone. However, the person who robbed the gas station obviously had a nefarious motive. Money and a car was taken at the gas station, whereas the grocery store incident had none of those things. The 2 things were so different from each other that I'm not sure how that jury could conclude that the same person did them, coupled with all of the other factors into this case.

I believe that if this were any other state than Texas, MSM would have never seen prison time. The 15 minutes suggests the jury wanted to go home immediately.

Ooh, I cannot forget the all-male jury who was so charmed and enamored by Sharon Kinne that they barely paid any attention to the evidence at her trial, and after they acquitted her of murder, some of them left the jury box to go over and get her autograph! Can you imagine the backlash if any of the jurors in the O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake or Casey Anthony trials had tried that?!

I can't believe I had forgotten about Eileen Mangold's jury. That definitely belongs at the top of the list.

I know I mentioned Dowaliby, but I wanted to expand on that. I mean, what evidence was there? One witness that claims he saw a guy with a profound nose -- in the dark from a long ways away? What the...? The real kicker was in the AJ ep when the jury stated they wished they had tried Cynthia Dowaliby as well because they would have convicted her too. Talk about a biased jury. I can't believe they would imprison an innocent person without even deliberating on it.

I always find it grossly disgusting whenever someone who seems overwhelmingly guilty gets acquitted simply because they're famous and/or filthy rich (O.J. Simpson being the most blatant example I can think of). It's a sad fact, but it seems nowadays that with enough money, you can buy yourself out of anything. Also, even when someone famous does get found guilty of something, the consequences are never as bad as they would be for the average nobody. More often than not, they either don't go to jail, or if they do, they spend a ridiculously short amount of time there.

Also, like several other posters, I've always been among Michael Martin's supporters, and it always bugged me when the prosecutor referred to Doyle as "a great prosecution witness; the kind you wish you could always have in cases like this." Please. His credibility definitely becomes skewered when he goes from having some doubt to having absolute certainty literally in a matter of seconds ("I think that's the guy...uh...I'm sure that's the guy"), and during his whole interview he comes off as cocky, over-confident, and very unwilling to admit that's he's probably wrong. One thing I also find somewhat suspicious is why he would want to be interviewed anonymously when the person he's bashing is already behind bars. What would there be to be scared of at that point?

In thinking often about this case, there's a question that came to mind recently that was never answered either way during the segment, but I think it would be an interesting thing to know:

At the time of the robbery, did Michael Martin and Doyle know each other in any way, or were they complete strangers? Because if they were strangers (which seems more likely to me), then I think it's even more preposterous that Doyle could be so overwhelmingly sure about somebody that he never met before in his life.

Not a UM case, but I would say add George Zimmerman's jury to this list. I'm not sure what some of the rest of you think, but I think he got away with murder.

Not a UM case, but I would say add George Zimmerman's jury to this list. I'm not sure what some of the rest of you think, but I think he got away with murder.

I agree that he is guilty but it's not a UM case and it's also very controversial, so I don't think this is an appropriate avenue to discuss it.

I agree,I hope we can stick to the cases on UM.I'm sure there must be many forums debating the Zimmerman case online right now.

If anyone wants to continue discussing the Martin/Zimmerman case, we have a short thread in the "all other cases" section here:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=297222

Geez louise cannot even come to the UM board without reading about this.

Not a UM case, but I would say add George Zimmerman's jury to this list. I'm not sure what some of the rest of you think, but I think he got away with murder.

All I am gonna say on this topic is don't blame the jury, blame the state. They over charged him for one thing just like the state over charged CA.

The John Purvis jury. There was no evidence besides a forced confession and John's reaction to a Rorschach test (he was shchizophrenic). But also horrible was when they decided that Shane's death was "just an accident". No. When somebody kills the mother of a child and leave the child alone to die a lonely, slow, painful death, it is not an accident. One of the worst juries ever.

The jury that convicted Michael Lloyd Self.