SA peremptory challenge denied

[realdeal]

Judge Perry did not dismiss the state's peremptory challenge because she was African-American. He dismissed it because she could not judge another person (which she readily admitted) and he stated that others that they had questioned had similar beliefs and they were allowed through so he saw no reason to allow the state to use their peremptory challenge. There is still a third round of questioning to go through and perhaps she will not meet the expectations at that time and will be dismissed.

But I thought each side got 10 strikes, without having to necessarily give a reason. So if it was NOT based on race, why is it not allowed? What am I not understanding?
And, will the SA have a chance to appeal this, if it was understood by JP to be for a reason they did not intend?

 

[Adrienne37]

I must have missed the other potential jurors who flatly stated they can't judge another person.

He was referring to juror #1019 who stated (thanks to the synopsis provided by another WS) - death Penalty Stance: Against it. *No problem recommending life without parole or considering the facts of the case. *Says he could NOT consider the death penalty in any circumstance. *Believes God makes the final judgements, not him.

 

[sindydee]

I'm sorry, but whatever race, colour, etc etc, the whole point of having someone sit on the jury is to for the person to be able to judge the evidence presented to them, be able to understand it and be capable and willing to make a decision / judgement about a persons guilt or innocence based upon this.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I'm so sorry, but IMO, JBP mucked this one up. I remember this woman from the initial phase saying the SAME EXACT thing and it being brought to his attention....yet, JBP refused to dismiss her for cause. The SA kept trying to explain that she herself said she couldn't "judge others".....nope, IIRC, JBP noted the SA's objections and said she stayed.
She says the same thing during this second phase and he has the nerve to believe it's a "racial" thing with the SA, and, yet again, she stays.
Now....IF there is a mistrial called due to jury deadlock, AND it's because of this particular juror.....hope JBP has his hip waders on, because, IMO, he gonna be in some deep doo doo.
I don't think I've EVER been this disappointed and beyond livid at the same time during this entire case.
At this point, the whole thing is playing out like the Keystone Cops - that's what I'm getting from watching this process. But, then again, I'm not trained in any aspect of law or lawyers.
I say they just scrap this town and start from scratch.

 

[gamom]

I still don't get it.

The lady admitted she couldn't judge people; it's not about race, but logic. If she can't judge, she shouldn't be on a jury panel that will have to judge the evidence presented, which results in judging the defendant.

Ashton's objection made sense to me, and I feel that HHJP dismissed it simply because the lady was AA.

I have not heard the tape yet, but from the posts it sounds like she said she could not judge and then when asked if she could once she heard the facts (or something like that) she said she COULD. I think the arguement here, is in the end she gave the right answer. With out hearing the tape, I agree with HHJP. What makes her any different then the one juror the DT tried to have removed that said he thought she was "proboly guilty" and could not consider mitigating factors? Once they told him the law, he changed his answers. Sounds like the judge is being fair to both sides. :twocents:

But once I listen to the juror I will eat crow if I change my answer...

 

[Turnadot]

He was referring to juror #1019 who stated (thanks to the synopsis provided by another WS) - death Penalty Stance: Against it. *No problem recommending life without parole or considering the facts of the case. *Says he could NOT consider the death penalty in any circumstance. *Believes God makes the final judgements, not him.

Where did #1019 state he can't judge others?

 

[gamom]

Where did #1019 state he can't judge others?

I think it was way back in the first hardship phase. It was the first thing she said. However, she may have gone home...prayed on it (or whatever) and come to realize that if she had facts, she COULD judge.

 

[Turnadot]

I have not heard the tape yet, but from the posts it sounds like she said she could not judge and then when asked if she could once she heard the facts (or something like that) she said she COULD. I think the arguement here, is in the end she gave the right answer. With out hearing the tape, I agree with HHJP. What makes her any different then the one juror the DT tried to have removed that said he thought she was "proboly guilty" and could not consider mitigating factors? Once they told him the law, he changed his answers. Sounds like the judge is being fair to both sides. :twocents:

But once I listen to the juror I will eat crow if I change my answer...

But the State wanted to strike her, they get 10. The DT objected, saying that Ashton's objection was racially motivated. Ashton gave his reason, which had nothing to do with race at all - so he should have got to use his stike, imo. HHJP sided with the DT.

What am I supposed to think of that?

Not being a legal mind, or even fit for a jury, most likely, it seems that HHJP was calling Ashton a racist without actually saying those words.

 

[JSR]

Judge Perry did not dismiss the state's peremptory challenge because she was African-American. He dismissed it because she could not judge another person (which she readily admitted) and he stated that others that they had questioned had similar beliefs and they were allowed through so he saw no reason to allow the state to use their peremptory challenge. There is still a third round of questioning to go through and perhaps she will not meet the expectations at that time and will be dismissed.

BBM.

IIRC HHJP didn't say others had similar beliefs but just that others had given "wonky" answers (not particularly about the same subject matter) and after further questioning there was a better understanding from the POT juror. Basically HHJP put the ball back in SA's court saying they didn't follow up on additional questioning. And he's right they didn't. Even if the SA didn't intend to bounce her due to her race it appeared as though they were because Ashton didn't drill her more on the areas he was concerned about, at least in his explanation for his "cause" to strike. Mason knew it and jumped at the chance to use his trump card. Don't throw things at me, I don't agree or think that Ashton is racist. And much like he appeared in Court I'm outraged on his behalf that it was implied he was being racist.

I don't recall any POT juror saying they couldn't judge others at all. They might have indicated hesitation at implementing the DP but not on actually judging the guilt or innocence.

This woman indicated she didn't feel comfortable judging people based off what others say. If that's true then she isn't going to believe any circumstantial evidence in this case since it's primarily based off others accounts. This woman is a wild card and she's the DT's dream come true.

 

[Turnadot]

Thank you, JSR; that's what I heard, too, but you are far better at explaining.

 

[JSR]

He was referring to juror #1019 who stated (thanks to the synopsis provided by another WS) - death Penalty Stance: Against it. *No problem recommending life without parole or considering the facts of the case. *Says he could NOT consider the death penalty in any circumstance. *Believes God makes the final judgements, not him.

The State didn't object to this woman due to her stance on the DP. They objected because she stated she had a hard time judging others at all. Which common sense tells you is exactly what Juries do. Juries judge others based off evidence. This woman is going to have a hard time finding Casey guilty no matter what the evidence says, especially if it's primarily based off circumstantial evidence and based upon others testimony.

 

[gamom]

BBM.

IIRC HHJP didn't say others had similar beliefs but just that others had given "wonky" answers (not particularly about the same subject matter) and after further questioning there was a better understanding from the POT juror. Basically HHJP put the ball back in SA's court saying they didn't follow up on additional questioning. And he's right they didn't. Even if the SA didn't intend to bounce her due to her race it appeared as though they were because Ashton didn't drill her more on the areas he was concerned about, at least in his explanation for his "cause" to strike. Mason knew it and jumped at the chance to use his trump card. Don't throw things at me, I don't agree or think that Ashton is racist. And much like he appeared in Court I'm outraged on his behalf that it was implied he was being racist.

I don't recall any POT juror saying they couldn't judge others at all. They might have indicated hesitation at implementing the DP but not on actually judging the guilt or innocence.

This woman indicated she didn't feel comfortable judging people based off what others say. If that's true then she isn't going to believe any circumstantial evidence in this case since it's primarily based off others accounts. This woman is a wild card and she's the DT's dream come true.

She MAY however, believe that facts of the case and the VIDEOS of ICA, the 911 calls and the smell of decomp. MOO

 

[JSR]

She MAY however, believe that facts of the case and the VIDEOS of ICA, the 911 calls and the smell of decomp. MOO

Correct, you are right. The good news is that she won't believe a word that GA or CA say in Court.

 

[Turnadot]

She MAY however, believe that facts of the case and the VIDEOS of ICA, the 911 calls and the smell of decomp. MOO

What does it matter to a person who can't judge others? OTOH, you may be right. I hope so.

 

[HOTNTX]

WTH???

I hope the judge isn't getting sloppy here! And the prosecution either. I wish that they would quit with the notion of having the jury sniff the tire covers!!

There are more than enough witnesses/experts to testify to "that" smell without risking a mistrial.

Hopefully what I'm getting from this woman is that she doesn't "pre-" judge others -- that she will carefully review and consider the evidence presented to the jury.

And let's face it...there will probably be more than one juror that is opposed to the death penalty.

 

[epiphany]

I have not heard the tape yet, but from the posts it sounds like she said she could not judge and then when asked if she could once she heard the facts (or something like that) she said she COULD. I think the arguement here, is in the end she gave the right answer. With out hearing the tape, I agree with HHJP. What makes her any different then the one juror the DT tried to have removed that said he thought she was "proboly guilty" and could not consider mitigating factors? Once they told him the law, he changed his answers. Sounds like the judge is being fair to both sides. :twocents:

But once I listen to the juror I will eat crow if I change my answer...

Respectfully, BBM.

Yes, that it what happened. She was rehabilitated. Other PJs had been rehabilitated, too, and were not struck. Therefore, why should she. Judge refused to allow it.

 

[iluvmua]

My opinion is that this woman should NOT have been selected to sit on this jury, and none of my reasons include race. She had so much trouble answering the most basic of questions. She isn't going to keep up with the trial. And she's going to vote not guilty simply because she isn't comfortable judging others. And at first she indicated she didn't agree with the DP. There were many reasons why she shouldn't have made it this round. I have for the most part agreed with HHJP but I think he made and error. I understand why he did, because CM played the race card and won.

If this is a hung jury this woman will be the reason for it. But have no fear, I know the state will retry the case. Casey WILL be convicted one day. Now I'm no longer as confident as I was before this process came along that this will be trial that convicts her. I assumed that people like this woman would be rightfully dismissed for proper challenges.

IF Casey gets a mistrial........................ People EVERYWHERE will be having a WTF moment.

 

[tehcloser]

Can a juror really be rehabilitated? Just because on the spur of the moment someone can convince you you could do something...does not mean you will be able to when it comes down to it. Ten minutes of talking to someone does not change a liftime of habit. I see this as a mistake.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Interesting info at link:

http://www.juryblog.com/

 

[Whome?]

But the State wanted to strike her, they get 10. The DT objected, saying that Ashton's objection was racially motivated. Ashton gave his reason, which had nothing to do with race at all - so he should have got to use his stike, imo. HHJP sided with the DT.

What am I supposed to think of that?

Not being a legal mind, or even fit for a jury, most likely, it seems that HHJP was calling Ashton a racist without actually saying those words.

No, he was not calling JA a racist. IMHO. In essence he told him he should have question the PJ "MORE" to establish what he was saying. CM brought up the race card,and based on the two situations. CM won. JMHO With all due respect. :twocents: