2011.05.13 - Jury Selection DAY FIVE Afternoon Session

[Amster]

Thanks Amster. Your recollection is the same as mine is regarding this issue.

:seeya: Hi

Before the lady was even brought in, JA suggested to HHJP that he begin with the question of her not being able to judge people. The entire challenge was based on that and nothing else at the time. IMO

 

[GiantPickle]

i am not as worried about her as others - I think she'll just sit quiet and not ask questions and just kinda go with the flow. she didn't sound to me like a "critical thinker"...I think she'll just zone out....hear the basics (didn't report the baby missing) and vote with the group.

 

[PMLsmom]

Why would age be a mitigating factor in this case???? FGS ICA was 22, not 8...

 

[TiaM]

You could see that JA was seething when he sat down.
I think he was really offended at the suggestion that it was racist.

I agree and I was offended on his behalf!

ETA: And I'll go one further and add that I think it is racist, and I am offended, that Baez and Mason seem to stereotype ALL minorities as being biased against Law Enforcement. While that may be true in some instances, it is NOT universal.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

What, no wave to IMASK?
( I married a Serial Killer).

OOPS .. I put her under RB

:seeya: IMASK :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

 

[logicalgirl]

See what Ann Finnell just did...

She said the STATE would present victim impact evidence.

AF knows full well that KC's family will support her and not Caylee....so she is planting the seed that the victim's family will appeal to you. WHEN the VICTIM'S family DOES NOT.....
the juror will be led to an assumption and refer back to AF's words during jury selection.

Bingo....NOW I know why the DT has spent SO MUCH FRACKING time on victim impact.

They are setting the jurors up for the statements that will NEVER COME.

Subliminal suggestions.

Well IF the Defense is counting on that - they'd better be holding off on the information AF has been running through, because if not, I believe they are in for some big surprises.

 

[Chiquita71]

HHJP: about your response to age being a mitigating factor. I indicated to you there were certain mitigaging factors. Factors you can consider, one but not limited to: the age of the defendant of at the time. The circumstances of he event that would...(sorry...)

I will also tell you the following. The process of weighing, aggrivating and mit factors to get punishment is not mechanical. Different factors can be given different weights to factors. What I need to know based on your prior answer, without me giving you prior instruction. Can you consider the age of the defendant at the time, how you weigh it is up to you but can you weigh it.

no.

HHJP: Okay

 

[Whome?]

OK OK OK....everybody calm down about the "juror".....she isn't even on the final panel yet, right? Won't the state be able to strike her without cause.....? I mean, games not over yet, right??????????????????? Lawyers? Anybody?

Didn't the judge say they could 'back strike" until trial?:waitasec:

 

[Zoe Bogart]

I'm sorry. Still stunned and hung up on the last juror. It all happened so fast. Mistrial is now a huge, huge possibility to me in this case. I thought justice was coming soon and now I am very worried that there is a good possibility it will have to wait for a couple of years. Sorry to be so dramatic but my professional instinct is very worried.

I have a lunch meeting to go to in a few and hopefully I will feel less negatively later on but for now I have lost my enthusiasm.

She may not be a main juror. She may become an alternate. If an alternate, she may never have any say in the final judgment.

 

[21merc7]

OT. Board question.

Every time I click a thank you on the board, which I have been doing a lot b/c next week will be too much work to do, then I try to click quote on a different post I get both posts in the quoted one. (I get two posts quoted) What am I doing wrong?

 

[epiphany]

To the Judge: No, i cannot consider how old the defendant was at the time of the crime.

 

[Apex-mom]

ouch. he's done

 

[KDB]

What exactly happens in the next round?

 

[Leila]

No, I don't believe the SA can strike her. They already tried to use their peremptory strike and HHJP denied their challenge.

In the third round of questioning, doesn't each side get to dismiss PJ for no reason?

 

[21merc7]

Judge not happy. Housecleaning again.

 

[cluciano63]

Uh uh...the age thing? He absolutely won't consider age as a factor. Not saying he should, but he won't even weigh it and then dismiss it.

 

[ebedeeb]

Bye Bye PJ...if he cant consider age as a mitigating factor, he is out.

 

[Patty G]

25 more jurors

 

[2goldfish]

I think the state will use one of their 10 dismissals to dismiss her.

someone please, please correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that JA tried to do just that and HHJP said he may not, because JB claimed it was because of her race. which means she is DEFINITELY on the jury. yes or no? anyone?

 

[MissJames]

IMO
Listening to her the other day...she should have been excused then.

Saying you can't judge anybody is even MORE critical than saying you are against the DP,IMO

HHJP must see it as an appellate issue if he denied the SA