Invalid juror inference

In this audio interview after the penalty retrial, 14 minutes 20 seconds in, a juror concludes that Jodi lied on the stand.

According to the juror, Jodi testified that when she was looking for a house with Darryl Brewer, they wanted to purchase a house in a good school district, because of his son.

But in earlier testimony, it was stated they only had the Darryl’s son Jack during the summer time.

Juror : “So at that point I felt like, ok, she’s lying to my face, I can’t give any credit to any of her testimony.”

However, in Darryl Brewer’s testimony from the first trial, it was explained that Jack’s mother had plans to re-marry, and move to that area, to be close to Jack. There was shared custody , and Jack would live with Darryl part of the time. So in fact there was no reason to believe Jodi’s testimony was untrue. Darryl was simply doing forward planning for an anticipated change in circumstances.

Were these jurors fit to judge a case of this complexity?

 

Advertisements