Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Anny and Samantha.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm welcome to stuff I never told you, protective, I
hurtried you, And today we are going to be talking
about something we teased in our recent episode on women
(00:27):
and jury duty, which is Samantha and I's experiences in
court in my primarily my experience recently serving jury duty,
which we didn't get to go into, which was why
I was gone for five.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Days, abandoned me for so long?
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Did it was a panic when I got chosen?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
I was like, oh no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
All panic for different reasons.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yes, I'm not going to go too much into the
details of the case. I'm just going to kind of
talk about my experience as a juror. But that being said,
it was murder trial, right, I'm not going to get
into that much detail, but I will be talking a
little bit about how that impacted me.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Yes, although I think it is it's good to note
because one of the things that you should let them
know is about the timeline. So I think people get
shocked about the fact that it takes so long for
the process and why people may like never hear anything
for three or four years. And then also with that,
like why witnesses have issues and trying to restate the
(01:43):
same things. Because time makes differences.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
It does, it does. So speaking of before I forget, Yes,
this was a trial. This was a case from twenty nineteen.
It had on to trial previously, and it was a mistrial.
It was a hung jury and we could see what
they decided, which was really interesting and I'll talk about
(02:08):
it more, but there was a pretty stark divide of
like there were five charges and there were some people
who were very much guilty on all and there were
some people who were not guilty at all. But anyway, yeah,
it happened in twenty nineteen, it went to trial, there
was hungury, so it was coming back, but the state
(02:31):
brought that up of the like, I'm sorry it took
so long because you know, the families are in there
and there was a lot of emotion running pretty high,
and it was pretty shocking that it was from twenty
nineteen and here we are deciding it now. But also, yeah,
(02:51):
going to your point, because you have experience testifying, there
were witnesses, some of whom I believe you've testified at
the previous time, who were called into question because they
couldn't remember the exact specifics of the case or whatever
(03:12):
they had to do with the involvement, And sometimes it
would be like, do you need to look at your report,
one of the lawyers would say, And it just because
that does you know, the jurors are meant to judge
how credible a witnesses, right, But yeah, I mean, of course,
like I, I wouldn't know if that was if I
(03:32):
didn't have my report in front of me, and it is.
It's scary. I got scared in the process of being
interviewed as a juror, and I flubbed an answer, I
flubbed questions. So I can only imagine if you're getting
called in and you're getting these questions from two lawyers
(03:54):
who are trying to use you in one way or
another to prove either side or whatever they're going through.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Right. Well, and also, just as you were telling me earlier,
he was also released at that point on under house arrest.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Right I think so, yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
So he must have been able to make bell, which
is unusual for that type of those types of charges.
So I'm kind of interested in how he was able
to plead that every now and again, circumstantially you can
house arrest is different from different people. So this is yeah,
like the things I know. I've never been on a jewelry.
(04:32):
I've been called in a couple of times. One time
I was able to get out because my home address
was still my parents address because I was too transient
where I would move around too much, and I felt
like that would be better. And then I had to
go to there and be like, I don't actually live here,
that's and they're like, uh, you need to change your address.
It's like fair enough, fair enough.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
My bad.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
And then another time I just called in and they
didn't need me. And I've always like you and I
talked about last time. I was like, I doubt I'll
ever be on a jury just because I worked with
the state, so I often did court cases and helped
represent the state in whatever conversations we had, whether it
was for the Department of Family and Children's Services or
whether it's for Department of Juneral Justice, and the Department
(05:16):
of Juvenal Justice works with kids youths who are offenders,
so they have broken the law so that they don't
quite go to jail necessarily, but they do go through
similar processes. It's never a jury trial because obviously they
can't have because deciding a factor about a case, but
I would oftentimes be the one coming in. I had
(05:37):
to do paperwork for petitions for all these different things,
whether it's to put them on house arrest or whether
it's to lock them up, or whether it's to release
them or I get the treatment for them. So I
had to do a lot of petitions and go in
front of judges and it is really really nerve wracking.
Even though you might just be in front of like
ten people, it still feels like a battle. And of
(05:58):
course for me could be at personalities any that. Yeah,
you know, performance anxiety in general. So that's that was
the thing. But also because I feel like it was
a heavy responsibility because these are the people's lives, whether
they're youth or adults, and you need to respect both
the victims the Hindu for perpetrators like you, they are
human beings, and I often had cases where I kind
(06:20):
of went against the state trying to do better for
the people because there would be extenuating circumstances that we
might not know, and.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Also because justice system is.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Not as unbiased as they would like to claim, as
we've seen repeatedly.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
There's a lot sub to that.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
But yeah, like him being on house arrests for those
extensive charges including murder not necessarily like aggravated or like that,
but still is like, wow, he was able to go home.
Usually they hold them no matter what, even if they do.
Maybe the hung jury was the difference because I don't know,
but if it was an extensive, like harsh enough charge,
(07:01):
typically they will Again murder will't necessarily release you like that.
Now house of rest is different, y'all. I could go
into the whole conversation about monitoring and what that looks
like in the GPS system and the private companies that
the state hires on how much money they make in
these really not great systems.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yeah, easyed a fool.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Well, okay, Well to clarify, as I mentioned in our
Women and Jury Duty episode, there are the opening arguments
in this specific case, but I think in general, in
cases like this, it starts with the state because the
burden of proof is on the state. In the state
(07:48):
in this case was of course representing the person who
I died, and then they argue, and then the defense
comes out and argues, and then their closing arguments are
The state goes first. The defense has a rebuttal, and
then the state gets to go again and we were
(08:09):
told very clearly whatever they say is not necessarily true.
And then after we rendered our verdict, they were victim
impact statements. And the victim impact statements is when one
of the family members of the person who had been
murdered said, he's been on house arrest this whole time.
(08:30):
So I don't know, that's just.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Okay where I'm that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Yeah, so I but I don't know if it's true.
I just know what she said. Right.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
To be fair, it may have absolutely everything to be
with the due to the fact that they are overpopulated,
and so certain people will be released based on that
due to the level of violence, the level of violence
within being arrested or being threatened within a secured place.
So you never know if it was a judge's choice,
(09:02):
I mean, they still had to approve it, but like
he could have been released on a monitor house arrest
based on the fact that the jail was overpopulated at
the time and he was less risk than any of
the others detained.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Which I don't know. There's a lot of drug.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Charges that happened in jailed and fined, and they.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Seem like they would be less risk than their murder charge. Whatever. Again,
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
We had a lot of questions as a jury about
many things, but in terms of like, oh wow, that
that calls for that amount of time served and that
is that okay? Interesting? But also we found out a
lot of things after we gave the verdict and the
lawyers can come talk to you. The defendant in his
(09:53):
family had received a lot, lot a lot of death threats,
so I don't know if that had anything to do
with it either. But anyway, okay, I want I'm just
going to break down the whole thing. I bet, I'm
going to keep it pretty short. So I actually have
a lot of friends who've never been summoned for Jerry
(10:15):
j D kind of blows my mind. You get a
summons in the mail. It gives you time and place
to show up, which, yes, you will get in trouble
if you do not. You can defer it. There's a
couple of like I'm a full time student and a
full time caregiver. There's a couple things like that that
you can just get out of it. But you can
(10:35):
defer it just for like this is not a good time,
which is what I did, because we were going to Seattle.
But I deferred it foolishly. I didn't choose a date,
which you could choose a date. I was just like whenever,
and I immediately when I.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Got back, well I guess whenever.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
They were like, you're coming in now. So you go in,
and at least in the one in Fulllton County where
I am, which Fulton County is huge. They kind of
they they put you in this huge waiting room. They
show you videos about how your jury duty service works,
which is really funny to me because some of them
(11:14):
are like how to answer the summons, and I'm like,
we're already here, so okay. But then you're assigned a
number and they call your number. Well not always because
the night before, like you said, you call and sometimes
they don't even need you. But if you've gotten to
the court, if they call your name, they assign you
a number. And this is because if you do get chosen,
(11:37):
it's for your protection essentially, so they don't know your name.
And I'm very glad I wrote down my number because
I was extremely extremely confident I would not get chosen.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
So but then you.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Get a number, you go to the court, and that's
when you do varder, which is the case I was in,
was pretty large. The previous time I made it to
that section it was much smaller, but this is pretty large.
So they broke us into three groups and they bring
you in and then they interview you. Then they have
basic questions like have you ever been the victim of
(12:25):
violent crime? Things like that, and then they have specifics.
So for me, I did get asked about the podcasting,
and this is when I got really nervous and like
flubbed my answers because I was just like, so, oh,
my gosh, I don't know. But I did say it's
a feminist podcast and I was proud of that, So
you do that. And then I was in the middle group,
(12:48):
which was like the worst timing because I had to
wait for all the other groups to happen. Then they
bring you back in and they announced who the jurors are.
Mine was twelve plus two alternates that you don't know
who the two alternates are, and my god, gold, I
was shocked. I was in complete shock. And then they
(13:11):
dismiss everyone else and then they give you the overview
of what the next in this case, few days are
going to look like what it requires, and you have
to remember your number because that's how you're gonna like
do your notes, which, as I said, you have to
take notes, or you really should because they don't give
(13:33):
you transcripts with anything. And yeah, I was in a
little bit of shock, went home panicked. We were trying
to figure out what we're gonna do. Right on sav
we were trying to figure out what we're gonna do. Yeah,
but so it's nine to five. It was nine to
five for about five days, and which is the worst
(13:56):
traffic time, as you can imagine. You have to go,
you go through security, all of that, and I sat
in and the first day was primarily like a lot
of evidence being presented, and then the second day was
more witnesses and then we deliberated for about seven hours
(14:18):
and we did arrive at a verdict. And deliberation is
the part I was most worried about, because I was
just really concerned. I did feel a responsibility, and I
was worried that I'd have to be like the squeaky wheel.
It's like, no, I don't agree, or I don't I
(14:38):
don't think that's what's up. So we rendered a verdict.
It did take us all. We went back and forth,
and then there was the option for people to leave.
At this point I did not leave because I just
wanted to see it through. This is when the victim
impacts happened, which should kind of to I guess sway
(15:02):
the judge perhaps and how much, and the sentencing and
then the sentencing happens, and then it was mostly over.
But it was clear the defense planning on appealing it.
I think, although the state lawyer told us that some
of the charges they went with because we proposed different charges,
(15:24):
and she said she knew they would have been appealed
if they had gone with those charges, and so they
chose ones they thought wouldn't be likely.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Yeah, Because after we gave the verdict, the judge came
and talked to us and was just like talking it
out with us and like what he thought. He wanted
to know what we thought. And then the lawyer came
in and we did the same thing, and that's when
we learned some of the other details of the case
that we didn't know because it couldn't be entered into evidence. Also,
during this whole time, you can't talk about it, which
(15:57):
you know you want to desperately because you're like, I
say something like this where it was very ah, I
had like a lot of upset happening, But also it
was just it wasn't clear cut, and I know most
cases probably aren't, but it wasn't clear cut, and it's
like you want to talk to your friends about it
and like what do you think? But you can't talk
about it until after. So that was that I wanted
(16:21):
to just run through some brief thoughts I had during this.
I was incredibly anxious. I was really anxious the whole time.
There was really intense evidence, and the families are there,
and so it was it was like not a good
(16:41):
time for like my body. But when yeah, I mean
you're in the courtroom for like five hours at a time.
You have like a nine to twelve, then a little
twelve to one break, and then four hours, and so
I had like worries about coffeeing and stomach rumblings and
(17:02):
all of those things. But oh gosh, Yeah. And I
would say there was somebody on in my interview group
who said he had been a victim of a gun
crime and was like, I have sometimes I'd dissociate. I
have these moments all of this and he got chosen
(17:25):
and I ended up like talking to him a lot
because I also felt kind of felt silly because I
felt like no one else was being affected like I was,
and I was like, am I just a big baby?
But he know. We had some good talks yeah about it,
and a lot. This was a big kind of part
(17:47):
of the centerpiece of this was questions around self defense
and gun violence in general. And I have to say,
after the first day, I was just like, no one
should have guns. That was like my take. But they
asked a lot of questions about gun ownership and viewing
your views on guns. And I have to tell you,
(18:08):
so many men took this time during the interview process
to tell us about how many guns they had. Now
great it was and all of this, and I was
just like wow, wow, you op Okay. There was a
lot of like really played out stereotypes that happened. The table,
(18:32):
like our juror table split like women were on one
side and men were on the other, and we just
did that naturally, like it wasn't And the men, I
Am not kidding, We're talking about football and grilling and guns,
and the women were trying to work and like take
care of childcare stuff like, it was just a really
(18:55):
stark difference. I spoke about some comments I heard from
men about judging the women's the witnesses or experts that
were brought in and their appearances, so that was very
much there. They did try to argue at one point
like men will be men and that's why he did it,
(19:16):
and all of the women were like, no, not an offense,
not an efense. No. And I was worried about voicing
my opinion and all of that, but I will tell you,
in this case, I saw the benefits very clearly of
(19:40):
having women and women of all different backgrounds, because they
were the ones that were really voicing what they thought
and were very passionate, and they were on opposite sides,
(20:00):
and I thought that was really good actually because it
helped me kind of work through this. But there they
were really caring about what this would do, and I
was happy to see it. It did get heated, there
was some yelling, but I was glad. Oh my gosh,
(20:24):
people were mad. The main piece of evidence was a
surveillance video. We had like eleven angles of the surveillance video,
but we were watching it frame by frame, and people
were like arguing about what's happening here and what's happened here.
It just happened so fast. It was a very quick
quick thing. Another thing that happened. You get the jurors
(20:52):
choose a foreman, and that's somebody who kind of just
keeps track of what people are thinking, and they are
the person that reads the like we the jury find whatever.
And he was really good. At first. I didn't think
i'd like him. If you're listening, sorry, but at first
I didn't think i'd like him. But he was really
good at like checking in on are you feeling overwhelmed?
(21:15):
There was somebody else in the jury who had like
an auditory overwhelm kind of thing that would happen, and
if we were all yelling like we would take a break.
And so he was really good at checking in on
all of that stuff. I would also say it was
almost all women on either side of the families that
(21:37):
showed up for the case. It was almost all women,
and they were the ones giving the personal impact statements
at the end. Something else that I'm really still grappling
with is that I didn't answer yes to the have
(21:58):
you been the victim of a violent crime? And I
should have. And the fact is, because I knew it
was a gun violence case at this point, I was
thinking of it like that and I wasn't thinking about
sexual assault, but I should have. And in fact, afterwards
I looked up with that count and it's a shame
(22:19):
and terrible to me that I had to look up
what that of counted. But that's something I'm going to
have to really work on. And then, of course, as
we talked about in our Women in Jury Duty episode,
just the systemic issues of taking time off from your job,
like pay and travel and childcare and all of that,
(22:41):
and hearing the women on the Jury Duty mostly talking
about like, I don't know how I'm gonna I gotta
get kids, I gotta do this, I gotta do this
because it is sudden, like you don't expect you're going
to get your right.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
Well, also, you only had like a week right to
really try to figure out, Oh, okay, next week, I
have to do this. It's not like that quick. Well,
I mean I always thought that long. You don't have
like a three month planet ahead.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
No, I went in that day thinking I'd be home
that day, right, that was I don't know.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
You were pretty like ominous the way you were acting
seemed like you already thought you may be picked. The
way you were like, so may have Joey duty, cross
your fingers, and then we're both like hmm. And then
as you were like I'm here, I'm like, oh, do
you think you're like, no, I think I might be picked.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
No, I think I might be picked. As you were
like going throughout, like you kind.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Of hinted that you kind of weren't thinking that you
probably would, it seemed.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
I know I was because the first round of interviews
where they just kind of are like raised yes or no,
eraise your your number, I didn't raise it once, and
I was like, oh, oh oh, And then I was
like maybe not because they had so many questions about
the true crime.
Speaker 5 (24:00):
Yeah, but then nope, you got got it.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
But you know, overall I did have.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
It.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Would you classify as this is a ten to ten
experience or.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
I am still recovering? It was a lot. I it
was a lot, But I did have like a good
experience with the jury. The fore men was really good.
I liked that the at the end, like the judge
came and talked to us, and the lawyer came to
talk to us, I thought that was cool. I liked
seeing these women be so outspoken and passionate about it.
(24:51):
I don't know if that's normally the case on juries.
I just know that this my experience, this was I
liked that people seem to really care about it, because
I also thought, you know, you're not allowed to talk
about it, even with your fellow jurors. So I had
no idea like if I was going to get in
and be the only one that was like, well, I
don't know about that, right, But people were really passionate
(25:15):
about it. The women were lawyers, the lawyers in this case, uh.
And I did learn a lot. I know, it's kind
of Lauren made fun of me when I said that.
She's like, that is the most house stuff works answer
I have ever heard.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
But when we found out you were chosen to be
enjoy you were like, well, like, that's an episode.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
I mean, that's the way we think it is.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
It is. But I learned about like medical examiners and
forensic and cell phone data, which, by the way, he
was so excited someone was asking him about cell phone data.
I learned about all kinds of things, and yes, it
was inconvenient and traumatic, but I am glad that we
(26:03):
took it seriously and we did come to an agreement.
And you know, at the beginning, it didn't seem like
we would because people were so all over the place
and you have to read They give you the laws
to read of what applies to these charges, and you're
(26:23):
trying to sit there and make sense of these like
legalese terms.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
Right, they're trying to teach you law like your lawyer
within love, because like that's part of the problem in
any kind of jury case, you know. And I know
y'all remember from high school and we all had our
you know, jury type of thing where we all had
to protendre or whatever whatnot. And I was for me,
I was one of the lawyers, and it was about
(26:47):
like brutus and the murder of Caesar and all of that.
But like I remember, my whole defense with the case
was that yes, he we are not denying that he
murdered this person, but what we're saying is he did
it for the good of the country, and it wasn't
malicious murder, but it was for in defense. So like
this is not all these things, and none of the
(27:10):
kids understood it, and they would not hear because like, no,
you admitted it. He killed some merriers, But that's not
the point. The point is what type is this? This
is justified? Is this in self defense? Is this a
justified murder? Blah blah blah. What do we need to
look like? Like all these things, And my teacher was
actually really really impressed because.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
She was like that actually would have could have worked.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
And you, you know, in the the lawyer because you're
thinking analytically instead of just like black and white. But
because laws are like that, people don't know, especially when
they have different charges and what they're trying to get
you to know and versus what is being charged, Like yeah,
sure we know he killed them, but you need to
figure out.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
Is this self defense? Who shot first? Like who?
Speaker 4 (27:50):
What was the intent or no intent? Like all of
these things timing and then telling you it doesn't matter
if he had like thought about it or didn't think
about it, and it was whatever it could be intent
because he thought about it right before he shot him.
Like all of those things that you were telling me,
I'm like, yeah, those are things that we wouldn't know
as a layperson. So they have to teach you law
in order to try to teach you how to vote
(28:12):
about this person's wye, which is crazy.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
It was because there was the one that we ended
up charging finding him guilty on. It was two, but
the main one. I'd never in a million years would
have said that. But then when we were reading the law,
I was like, yeah, yeah, and it's very it's hard
to like go of the thought that, like, because they
(28:38):
kept telling us premeditation doesn't count, intent doesn't count. Oh, no,
intent counts, but didn't count for like one second, like
one second, one second, So it's not like the premeditation,
I guess is the thing because you always think like, oh,
they were thinking about it, but uh right, yeah, I
learned a lot.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
But he also like he denied a plea, which took
things off the table. Yeah, so you couldn't give him
a lesser time for some things because he said, no,
I'm not guilty of any of this, so instead of
which kind of is a trickery that is done by
the prosecution sometimes not all the time, but sometimes where
it becomes a whole thing where they're like, you sign
this agreement without knowing what you signed, but you signed
(29:18):
it and we're going to use this against you, So
why don't you just take this plea and go with
this type of thing, and then they get harassed and
pushed into doing taking a plea deal even though they're like,
but I didn't do this, like nolo contendo contender, that's
all that. It's like, yeah, I must say I did it,
but I didn't do it, but I I'd rather not
(29:39):
go to the process and go possibly get prosecuted for
the worst thing.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
So another thing that happens is if you have questions
while you're deliberating, they bring you out, you submit them
via paper to the judge. They bring you out to
the whole everybody's waiting out there. You sit back in
your jury box and they answer the questions there. So
they knew we were thinking about, like can we give
(30:06):
a lesser charge? Can we do this? Can we do this?
So everyone knew like what we were thinking and it
was apparently turned down. And as I mentioned in the
Women in Jury Duty, we got polled, which is just
when one of the lawyers in this case, it was
the defense goes through goes to every jar and asks
(30:28):
like did you arrive at this? You stand by it,
like all of that stuff to see if somebody up
a jur felt pressured and actually didn't agree, and we
had somebody who was like, nobody better pull some kind
of surprises. I didn't even know that that was that
was the thing, But afterwards I think I think they
(30:53):
were joking back. I'm she said something because I didn't know. Well,
I think we would have kept talking.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Oh yeah, But anyway.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
I didn't know. There's a thing in Georgia called the
enlightened the enlightened conscience of the jury, which is almost
kind of the opposite of what you were talking about,
which is when a jury it's like, none of these
charges fit, but they should do time. So if we're
not going to get those other things, which apparently is
(31:26):
a real thing I hadn't heard about on it, we
did agree, if again, if anyone's listening, we did agree
with what we arrived at. But I looked that up
afterwards too, because I was like, what is that.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
There's a lot of things.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
It was a really high it was the sentence was severe,
it was and it was like and it sucked because
it was a murder trial. It was a murder trial.
So we like we knew, no one's going to be
happy about this. No one's happy business.
Speaker 4 (32:02):
It's interesting when you look at the different types of
charges that people go and this is why those charges
are really really important in what's petitioned because it does
make a huge difference. And we're talking about aggravated versus
felony like just single manslaughter like all of that.
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Those are very important charges.
Speaker 4 (32:21):
I was talking about for juveniles their felony levels, and
it's like the Seven Deadly Sins type of thing where
they can be called a designated felon. So they do
an adult type of charge, but they're not charged as
an adult yet, but they know they need a longer
time than just being on probation for two years, like
there's like, oh no, they have to start up at
(32:42):
least I want to say, seven years, or until their
eighteenth birthday or until their seventeen eighteenth birthday. So according
to what kind, if it is severe enough and they
are charged as an adult, they most likely if they're
younger than fourteen fifteen and their stature council a lot
so they're small, they will be placed in the juvenile
facility for a certain amount of times and then they
(33:04):
will get transferred to adults to serve the rest of
the time out but a lot of the times, like
the designate felon, and this is a Georgia thing. Every
state is very very very very very different. This designated felling,
which doesn't completely make sense to me, is specific to
the state of Georgia. But it's all those big laws again,
less rape, aggravated rape, murder, aggravated robbery that means there's
(33:27):
a gun involved. All of those things are very big,
big deals. Four years is four years that they have
to serve, and they are, but they're still technically a
juvenile and they unless again they are. They think it's
at age of fourteen? Is at twelve or fourteen in
the state of Georgia, I can't remember. They can be
charged as an adult. That's a whole different conversation. I've
had kids who are seventeen that they don't realize they're
(33:49):
in that weird era that they're technically an adult. So
anything that's a felony, you're gone. You're out of the
juvenile system and you're now completely into the adult system.
And i've kids not realizing that being told that there
were kids taking a gun with them when someone else
was being robbed. They were just there with a gun.
Bad y'all bad. So don't get me wrong, I'm not.
(34:09):
I'm not excusing any kids.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
I'm not.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
But they don't understand the gravity because they really think
that they're still a part of the general system. And
then they get that charge at a very robbery and
it takes twenty it can be twenty years to twenty
five years of their life and they don't realize that,
and you're like, oh, you done that. One mistake was
a big mistake.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
It's huge, it is it is, and that was you know,
it was difficult because the victim impact samans they were
looking at us a lot of times and you're like, wow,
it should have been more than The other side, of course,
is like it should have been less.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
So the conversation of justice, no one feels like there's
been justice. I think, especially when there's a life loss.
There's no such thing. There's no such thing as justice,
and people have different understands in variation. And then again,
if if somehow they were influenced by their family to
live that life, it's hard to see that as well.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
It is and you have to to be clear, like
you have to make these decisions based on the evidence.
So even if you have your like personal Oh, I
think this is what happened, or I think you have
to do it based on the evidence what you're supposed
to you're supposed to, and so that that's my point
is I feel I don't feel good about what happened,
(35:31):
but I see I feel I feel good about like
we did talk through this and came it. But the previous.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
Made the best decision you could on the things that
that was presented to you, what you were told.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Yes, but the previous jury. I don't think this is
a surprise to anyone, but juries are notoriously fallible. But
the previous jury, the one person that made it a
hung jury said I just want to know why, And
so the state lawyer and are started her opening argument
(36:07):
with I can't tell you why for us, but wanting that,
like we said, you're not supposed to think about like
the motive and all that unless it's like you're trying
to prove some kind of like.
Speaker 4 (36:19):
This was a murder based on like a spousehal killing.
That is absolutely absolutely important.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
It was just kind of comical. I mean, it was
interesting to see how different that jury went.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
It sounds like that one person had too much empathy,
like he really needed to understand how human life could
be so easily lost. And it's not funny. I'm not
again like seeing the things that I've seen, the systems
that I've been a part of, the things that we've
had to talk about in order to like really make
it out alive, like as little trauma as possible, and
(36:57):
we got a lot of trauma off. But like what
comes down to is they are not going beyond that
moment and they didn't if they don't know if they
had known the results, would they would it react that?
Speaker 1 (37:11):
Would they have reacted the same? We don't know.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
But they don't come in oftentimes with this ideal that
I'm going to do this or this is going to happen.
Like there's no real depth of future repercussions. They don't
understand future repercussions. And especially when we talk about teenagers
and kids, that's one of the big conversations we continually
have to have and why when we have conversations about
(37:33):
like heay, your brain's not really fully developed until twenty
five and even until then, if you're impulsive, if you
have ADHD, if you have a nature of pleasure like
trying to get what you want, immediately. It's really hard
for them to find a way to detach again their
response accountability versus their actions.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
Yeah, and that was not excusing crime. You can't. You can't.
Speaker 4 (38:01):
There's no way that you can that that woman wanting
to know the why.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
That's really especially in a crime like that.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
Two seconds.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
Yeah, then this, like in this kind of situation, everything
was stacked against both of them in that they allowed
some build up, like society is apart, Like there's such
a it's such a big conversation and I'm going this
far because I'm like, no, I know what this woman
is thinking, Like I know what she really wants. She
wants to stay in her bubble and trying to figure
out how human life could just be so easily expendable
(38:33):
and it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be, but like try to.
Speaker 1 (38:36):
Figure that out.
Speaker 4 (38:37):
Like she needed to know that motive, just to know
if this person was evil, Like she wanted to base
it on whether or not this person was evil.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
Yeah, She's not always clear cut.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
No, not at all, not at all. And I will admit,
like when we were doing our women in Jury duty
and we had all those quotes about like why they
were trying to keep women off Jerry's. One of them
was they're too empathetic, and I was really empathy. I
was like, oh no, but it was so it sucked
(39:05):
for everybody, right yeah. Yeah. Also closing, sorry, this is
so long ago. I'm not to say this Monday Miniu famous.
One day, maybe I'll come talk about kind of famous
people involved.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Right, Yes, if.
Speaker 4 (39:28):
You're part of the hip hop world, you'll know what
we're talking about. If you've been following any of the
Trump stuff in Atlanta, you'll know what we're talking about.
There's some big, big players here.
Speaker 5 (39:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
I was like, oh myle myle my. Okay, Well, if
you get Jerry Duty, I feel for you. But I
do think like there's value in having people who are
empathetic in care and having a diverse jury. So I
will say that that was my experience. I'm still kind
(39:58):
of recovering from it, but that was it.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
Good job, Thank you, good way to serve your people.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Thank you again to you and Christina and Caroline for
making it work. But yes, listeners, if you have any
questions about Jerry Duty, or if you have any experiences
with Jerry Duty or being in court or anything like that,
testifying please let us know. You can write to us
at stephaniea mom Stuff at i heeartmedia dot com. You
can find us on Twitter at mom Stuff podcast, or
(40:27):
on Instagram and TikTok and Stuff We Never told you.
We have a tea public store, and we have a
book you can get wherever you get your books. Thanks
as always too our super producer Christina or executive pducer
My Andrew Joey. Thank you and thanks to you for
listening Stuff I Never Told You Inspection by Heart Radio.
For more podcasts from my heart Radio, you can check
out the heart Radio Apple podcast wherever you listen to
your favorite shows