K&B Ask for custody order to be sealed

[reddress58]

Re-iterating that I hope someone like ncsu95 (or at least with the same thought-process) ends up on the BC jury.....

Don't discount yourself, Jumpstreet. You too seem fair and objective. You'd make a good juror IMO.

 

[raisincharlie]

Re-iterating that I hope someone like ncsu95 (or at least with the same thought-process) ends up on the BC jury.....

I hope all jurors enter a jury box with an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions applicable end up on all juries everywhere. Heaven help us if a certain thought process is ever a requirement.

 

[jumpstreet]

Heaven help us if a certain thought process is ever a requirement.

Huh?... You mention several good traits of jurors, but then go on to say, you wouldn't want to impose any restrictions on manner of thinking.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but how about the "thought-process" of being reasonable, open-minded, able to understand & follow legal instructions, and objective enough to put personal agenda outside. Would that "thought-process" and/or line-of-thinking be okay... or totally off-base?

Regardless, my point was that ncsu95 is among those that seems to demonstrate these things, so fwiw, I'm hoping at least one (doesn't have to be all... just one) of the juror's in BC's trial is in the same boat.

PS: Thanks reddress!

 

[hroark2112]

I've heard it said that a jury is the 12 best people they could find out of a group of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

I don't know how the average person is able to take the time off from work to sit on a jury in a capital case. Certainly those that BC would consider his equals will be at work, while his case is heard by retired bus drivers.

No offense intended to those who are able to serve on a jury...one day maybe I'll get the notice in the mail to be on one.

 

[raisincharlie]

Huh?... You mention several good traits of jurors, but then go on to say, you wouldn't want to impose any restrictions on manner of thinking.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but how about the "thought-process" of being reasonable, open-minded, able to understand & follow legal instructions, and objective enough to put personal agenda outside. Would that "thought-process" and/or line-of-thinking be okay... or totally off-base?

Regardless, my point was that ncsu95 is among those that seems to demonstrate these things, so fwiw, I'm hoping at least one (doesn't have to be all... just one) of the juror's in BC's trial is in the same boat.

PS: Thanks reddress!

Personally I find your comment insulting and not just to myself. Your point did not escape me at all.

 

[snowshuze]

He's too much of a coward to kill himself.

I concur. :blowkiss:

 

[RaleighNC]

Ultimately, the case was postponed because one of the medical witnesses / experts had a heart attack. The case was likely to be a week or so and it was civil, not criminal.

I sat through 2.5 days of jury selection and I was seated fairly early, so I had plenty of time to observe the process and the actions of my potential co-jurors. It was a bi time trial - and they had jury consultants, etc. I wish I could remember the name of the attorney that was plaintiff's counsel. He was outstanding - JUST in the selection process. I had to remind myself that I had not heard any real evidence yet.

After the trial was postponed and we were dismissed, I received a call from a couple of the associate attorneys for the defense - they asked my thoughts on the case. It was a case that they didn't want to lose as it was the death of a child and the defendant was a doctor.

Based on what I saw and that I knew that I had to tell myself that I'd not seen evidence yet and how convincing he was within jury selection (an art form, really) I don't see how there was any way they would win that case in front of a jury - at least not in front of the folks that I witnessed being interviewed for that 2.5 days.

I never saw it go to trial - so I am assuming they settled.

I had enough flexibility in my job that I could work at night / evenings to make up for the day, so I could serve for a week or so. I found it fascinating, the process, the jury pool and the command the plaintiff's attorney had of the entire courtroom.

And while I *think* (and think very strongly) that Brad did this - I have also stated this before - what all we've seen so far isn't enough for beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that many here - even the ones that photoshop Brad in his stripes behind bars - could weigh evidence and make a decision based on the matter of law. I also suspect they'd be better equipped to really be impartial than what I saw of the standard jury pool.

 

[snowshuze]

There's a few of us out here who still consider it our civic duty to serve on juries, and don't create reasons to not participate.
To date I have served on three juries, and considered it an honor to do so.

 

[RaleighNC]

There's a few of us out here who still consider it our civic duty to serve on juries, and don't create reasons to not participate.
To date I have served on three juries, and considered it an honor to do so.

That's exactly how I felt and using it as an educational experience on the entire civil court process. maybe I'll get to serve on a jury one of these days - but I thoroughly enjoyed watching jury selection.... again - art form...

 

[ncsu95]

There's a few of us out here who still consider it our civic duty to serve on juries, and don't create reasons to not participate.
To date I have served on three juries, and considered it an honor to do so.

I agree. The case I was on was ridiculous. They charged a guy with stealing a woman's purse. Here is what was presented...he had the woman's purse, so he had to have stolen it (basically sums it up). The prosecution put the "victim" on the stand. She indicated that the guy called her to say he had picked her purse up by mistake (he was with his girlfriend or wife...I can't remember...but they had the same color purses) and wanted to return it. She had already called the cops at this point (it was a day later that he called). So they arrested him and charged him with stealing. He didn't ask for money or anything, just indicated he wanted to return it because he picked it up by mistake. I don't remember where they were or what they were doing, but that is basically what happened. Also, not that it makes a difference to me, but the defendant was black and the victim was white.

Now that is the basic story presented at trial. And half of the jury thought he was guilty.

 

[snowshuze]

My very first voir dire I was very young, and scared out of my wits. I must have shook through the whole thing. I was the first one called, and the first accepted, lol.

 

[raisincharlie]

<snipped>

I had enough flexibility in my job that I could work at night / evenings to make up for the day, so I could serve for a week or so. I found it fascinating, the process, the jury pool and the command the plaintiff's attorney had of the entire courtroom.

And while I *think* (and think very strongly) that Brad did this - I have also stated this before - what all we've seen so far isn't enough for beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that many here - even the ones that photoshop Brad in his stripes behind bars - could weigh evidence and make a decision based on the matter of law. I also suspect they'd be better equipped to really be impartial than what I saw of the standard jury pool.

It is a fascinating process. Based on the matter of law, the key and the safe guard.

 

[raisincharlie]

My very first voir dire I was very young, and scared out of my wits. I must have shook through the whole thing. I was the first one called, and the first accepted, lol.

Voir dire is scarey but one learns quickly its purpose. Honesty pays.

Hello Ms. Shuze :blowkiss:

 

[Star12]

Huh?... You mention several good traits of jurors, but then go on to say, you wouldn't want to impose any restrictions on manner of thinking.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but how about the "thought-process" of being reasonable, open-minded, able to understand & follow legal instructions, and objective enough to put personal agenda outside. Would that "thought-process" and/or line-of-thinking be okay... or totally off-base?

Regardless, my point was that ncsu95 is among those that seems to demonstrate these things, so fwiw, I'm hoping at least one (doesn't have to be all... just one) of the juror's in BC's trial is in the same boat.

PS: Thanks reddress!

jump, why would you want someone so clearly biased on that jury? The jurors will be asked about bias, about whether they could be comfortable with the DP, if indeed the Rule 24 hearing goes that way. Bias on a jury is wrong no matter which way it goes. Don't you agree with that? Or, if you think bias going either way is a good idea, please explain. Because what you have said in this post just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[raisincharlie]

Since Sandlin/K & B are basing much of their motion on the Sheppard case, I went in search of old news articles to compare how this case was approached by the press in 1954 - 1956 versus how the press has approached the Cooper case in 2008. The following link reveals some of the press articles written concerning the murder of Marilyn Sheppard. Very interesting indeed:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sheppard/sheppardnewspaper.html


For comparison purposes since WRAL seems to be high on the list:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3359064/

 

[ncsu95]

jump, why would you want someone so clearly biased on that jury? The jurors will be asked about bias, about whether they could be comfortable with the DP, if indeed the Rule 24 hearing goes that way. Bias on a jury is wrong no matter which way it goes. Don't you agree with that? Or, if you think bias going either way is a good idea, please explain. Because what you have said in this post just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I'm not biased at all. I would have absolutely no problem convicting BC if there was evidence that showed he did it. I think even the 100% guilty folks (some of them at least) have admitted that there hasn't been enough made public to convict the guy. I simply say there hasn't been enough made public to put me in the "he's guilty" club yet. But I'm definitely not in the "he's innocent" club. I'm in the "on the fence" club until I see the evidence presented at trial.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Personally I find your comment insulting and not just to myself. Your point did not escape me at all.

Ditto RC. It was insulting. Being (secretly) pro-Brad is choosing a side too, and any agenda demonstrates a lack of objectivity. Wishing that for a jury?

I hope all jurors enter a jury box with an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions applicable end up on all juries everywhere. Heaven help us if a certain thought process is ever a requirement.

:bow: :clap: :applause: This is exactly what is needed in this and all cases! YES!! The jury is no place for agendas of any kind. I hope Brad gets a fair trial with a vigorous and competent defense; I hope every defendant gets that too.

 

[Star12]

I'm not biased at all. I would have absolutely no problem convicting BC if there was evidence that showed he did it. I think even the 100% guilty folks (some of them at least) have admitted that there hasn't been enough made public to convict the guy. I simply say there hasn't been enough made public to put me in the "he's guilty" club yet. But I'm definitely not in the "he's innocent" club. I'm in the "on the fence" club until I see the evidence presented at trial.

NCSU, thanks for clearing that up. However, my point still stands that wishing for bias on the jury could be detrimental to the process.

 

[Star12]

Just noticed this:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/

"Alice Stubbs, an attorney representing Nancy Cooper's family &#8211; to whom a Wake County District Court judge granted temporary custody of the Coopers' daughters &#8211; said she intends to file an objection to the motion."

 

[raisincharlie]

Just noticed this:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/

"Alice Stubbs, an attorney representing Nancy Cooper's family – to whom a Wake County District Court judge granted temporary custody of the Coopers' daughters – said she intends to file an objection to the motion."

I can understand her doing this and why she would object. Just going on what has been reported from the courtroom, what has been put in affidavits, even the affidavit from Detective Daniels, I have not seen any real evidence that has been revealed with respect to the criminal case to be made against Brad. Since we have not seen the judges ruling there is no way to know if that ruling would be prejudicial to the criminal case either. As to the custody issue, it seems the public is already aware that the children will remain in Canada and that seems to be logical since their father has now been indicted. I do not see how that would prejudice Brad as the only other option is to put them in the system. It appears to me that this stink being raised by his own legal team with these claims is more inclined to be pointing fingers at Brad than the custody issue overall.

My neck of the woods - anything, including custody hearings, affidavits and all the stuff we have seen in this case, would not be seen in the general public. I am not opposed to having this stuff sealed to be honest.