1235 users online (277 members and 958 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,792

    Steven Avery's Jury

    Let's talk about the jury selection process.

    It starts off with a Jury Questionnaire, which can be found on Steven Avery's Document thread.

    The questionnaire is designed to help determine the initial jury pool from which to select. Once the pool is "thinned out" so to speak, each side is allowed a specified number of preemptory challenges.

    With the above in mind, there are a couple of things that I found to be very odd with regard to this trial, Atty Strang's answers in the below video, not withstanding.

    1) Trial was held in Calumet County, Jurors were picked from Manitowoc County.

    2) Juror ties to Manitowoc County Sheriff's department. (see On Milwaukee)

    And here's the video of Atty Stang's response with regard to the above.




    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    Curious wording to me at 5:35, when he says they get only 6 strikes for "no cause" at all. Which implies that you don't have to argue it.

    Seems to imply that you can suggest a "cause" for why someone should be removed. ie they were the father of a deputy of manitiwoc county and there's an obvious conflict of interests there - imo.

    Maybe it has to be something more drastic ? (although I find that incredibly unfair)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    From Avery trial appeals decision opinion (2011):

    Regarding the dismissed juror:

    [18] Avery raises Juror M.’s postconviction testimony in support of his argument. Juror M. testified that he did not recall conveying that his stepdaughter’s accident was serious or that he was having marital problems. However, the trial court found Juror M.’s postconviction testimony not credible on these issues. See Richards v. Mendivil, 200 Wis. 2d 665, 671, 548 N.W.2d 85 (Ct. App. 1996) (we will not second-guess credibility determinations on appeal). Further, Juror M. also testified that he informed Pagel and the judge that “there was a family emergency and [he] had to go home” and, more specifically, that his stepdaughter had been in an automobile accident. Juror M. also acknowledged being “upset” and “distraught” during the conversations with Pagel and the judge.
    The trial court’s exercise of discretion is based on the facts before it at the time of its decision. While Avery contends that the trial court should have made further inquiries into the nature of the accident, for example ascertaining whether his stepdaughter required hospitalization, it is evident from the trial court’s summarizing memorandum that the accident was represented as being serious and, thus, there was no reason to inquire further. Juror M. testified at the postconviction hearing that the impression he was trying to create during his phone call with the judge was that he “was upset”; he wanted the judge to conclude that he “should be let go” and allowed to return home. When asked whether his “conversation with [the judge] was designed to accomplish that objective,” Juror M. responded, “Under the circumstances, yes.” Juror M.’s acknowledged objective supports the trial court’s concern regarding his ability to continue as a juror.

    Regarding opportunity for mistrial:

    "Strang testified that Avery was informed of his options under Lehman, including the right to have the court declare a mistrial. See Lehman, 108 Wis. 2d at 313. Defense counsel advised that Avery not move for mistrial because the case would go to trial again and, for financial reasons, neither defense counsel would be able to represent him. Counsel testified that, all things considered, their case had gone in as well as they could have hoped, and it was in Avery’s best interest for that jury to continue to deliberate on the evidence presented. In light of the facts surrounding Avery’s decision to forego a mistrial, there is no indication that he was deprived of a fair trial or reliable outcome as a result. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687."
    http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/D...ml&seqNo=70129
    Last edited by Sleuther87; 01-11-2016 at 06:22 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,212
    I will post this here as well since it points at one specific juror (C.W.) saying "he's f****** guilty" and "if you can't handle it then tell them and leave" (not sure if these are exact words). It says this was stated in the Jury room, in a restaurant and in a motel.


    https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vie...ase-relief.pdf

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,259
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/9...jurors-picked-

    On Monday, key questions concerned whether the potential jurors' had opinions about Avery, the Halbach case or the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department.

    snip

    JURY SELECTION

    • 144 Manitowoc County residents were summoned Jan. 29 to the county courthouse to fill out questionnaires to be potential jurors for the Steven Avery trial. The questions were written by Circuit Judge Patrick Willis, who is presiding over the trial.

    • A prosecutor, Avery's lawyers and the judge began questioning members of that pool Monday.

    • After Monday's questioning, nine members of the pool were selected as potential jurors. Once that number reaches 30, perhaps today or Wednesday, prosecutors and Avery's lawyers will each be able to remove seven potential jurors. That will leave 16 jurors to hear the case.

    • 12 jurors will be chosen to deliberate on verdicts, and four will be designated as alternates.
    IMO

    First they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
    Finally, they came for me and there was no one left to speak out.

    Martin Niemöller
    prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and pastor

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    106
    Do we believe this guy? He seems sincere to me.




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,212
    LifeCitizen ~ He was quite vocal until a few weeks ago.... he has indicated on the family fb page that Zellner has asked him to not say anything now. I could be wrong, but he was in the documentary and wasn't that filmed during Brendan's trial? and he was saying back then even that he would have voted not guilty.

    He left because his daughter was in an accident... which was odd in itself, but I think she has been asked to be quiet now too.

    I will say JMO because I won't screenshot their comments and put them here because they are from the family fb page.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    127
    It doesn't really matter if he would have voted not guilty. He asked to go home and the judge allowed it and after that it doesn't matter. That's like asking all the alternates what they would have voted and then getting upset if even just one says something different than what the verdict ended up being. Additionally, he wasn't present for all of the deliberations so I'm not sure he can really say how he would have voted. If he's arguing now that he walked into that jury room 100% convinced of Avery's innocence and nothing at all could have swayed him then I don't see how that's a whole lot different from the other juror supposedly being convinced of his guilt.

    To me, he wasn't super honest later on when he said that he couldn't remember all the reasons he said he needed to leave. I actually believe the first story, the daughter being in an accident and the wife being upset over him admitting that he lives off a trust fund vs his story later on of being intimidated. If that is what had happened then he could have told the judge that, but he didn't. I also don't get all the talking about jurors being convinced to vote guilty. Yea, that's what happens during deliberations all.the.time. It's not something unique to the Avery trial, it's how juries work and convincing others to your way of thinking doesn't necessarily mean you intimidated them. If Avery hadn't wanted to chance it with a jury he could have asked that his trial be to the judge. Ever wonder why so few defendants do that? The ex-juror seems to me to be looking for his 15 minutes of fame.



Similar Threads

  1. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 16 - 03.05.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2016, 09:26 PM
  2. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 12 - 02.27.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:18 PM
  3. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 13 - 02.28.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:13 PM
  4. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 14 - 03.01.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:09 PM
  5. Steven Avery Jury Trial Day 15 - 03.02.2007
    By bessie in forum Steven Avery Jury Trial Transcripts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:05 PM

Tags for this Thread