The state made that argument, not the DT. IMO that was a “he did it first” kind of assertion. Doesn’t matter, legally, what got the media rolling, just whether or not media saturation has so tainted the prospective jury pool as to deny RH a fair trial.
The timing of the DT’s motion for change of venue doesn’t matter either. Maybe it was DT strategy to gamble by waiting, maybe not. The DT has the right to strategize motions, as does the State. Only the bottom line matters. Does the voir dire to date support the DT’s contention the venue must be changed in order to protect RH’s constitutional right to a fair trial?
I was interested to see the DT argue that the Irwin USSC findings I posted about yesterday should be used as the standard for considering potential juror bias/prejudice. Even more interesting was the State’s reply that the Irwin standard applied only to DP cases, a point I noticed the DT did not rebut.
Staley will rightfully do an analysis of the numbers. If the DT had unlimited strikes, the number of prospective jurors left uncontested seems a large point in the state’s favor. Staley said she would review her full notes for those struck by consent for cause, looking for whether or not jurors mentioned being influenced by media coverage, but the sense I had as they all went quickly through the list was that the numbers wouldn’t be enough to support the DT’s motion, if Staley makes numbers and not Irwin (et al) the basis of her ruling.
I think Staley made her disdain known for the DT’s timing of motion, if nothing else, with her caustic barb that “as we’ve seen here today, opinions change….” (DT didn’t want a change of venue before, now they do).
Did he not talk about each of the juror when they were questioned?
