2011.05.13 - Jury Selection DAY FIVE Afternoon Session

[Pattymarie]

..and that is not a true statement,that is just conjecture IMHO

Exactly. Common perception that I believe JB is playing into.
However, there are lots of articles on mistrust of LE from this population. Easy to google.

 

[Chiquita71]

1135: Heed my instruction?

yes.

HHJP: not to discuss the case?

yes, just the basics to my family.

HHJP: have you engaged in any social media?

no.

HHJP: prior to this jury process. did you hear anything about this case?

I heard about ICA being taken in for murder. I have heard about the case.

HHJP: any other facts besides ICA being arrested for murder?

something about her grandparents and a trunk being involved.

HHJP: anything else about the trunk?

that a baby was in it.

HHJP: anything else about the trunk?

no

HHJP: have you read anything about the case? have you expressed opinions with others, discussed with others?

I have been around but not discussed.

HHJP: as a result of what you have heard about this case have you formed opinions or impressions?

not the person I am.

HHJP: if you are selected then you must base your verdic soely on the law I give you. since we as humans cannot erase our memory about things is to separate our memory and base our decision on the evidence.

I understand. if you say that is not admissable, that is fine.

HHJP: base whatever decision only on the law and the evidence as it is given to you, any hesitation or reservation?

no.

HHJP: state.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

New word- segue........:innocent:

 

[Blue Jackets fan]

Wow, look at the time - no wonder I am hungry!

I'll split you a Donatos pizza

 

[QueenD]

CA most likely brings them to the jail or to JB for her.

Thats interesting, ICA wants nothing to do with parents no visit, etc.

And possibly going to get thrown under the bus and or put to shame as to how she/they raised their daughter but yet, Mother still brings her clothes to court.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

What age is older?

Over 65

 

[epiphany]

IMO, so far he sounds intelligent, has open mind, etc.

 

[Whome?]

IMHO when SA saw this lady (AA) come in,LDB should have been the one ?ing her they knew the D/T wanted AA/hispanics on jury. This should have been dealt with very carefully. I am not blaming HHBP I blame JA in this case,he should have known better. D/T just the other day stated not enough minorities,if the judge had kicked this juror off with the small amount of ?ing this case may have come back. JMHO :waitasec:

 

[gitana1]

Me either Gitana. Me either. That's scary. And for the first time since this case started I'm worried the DT will get their hung jury.

Oh gosh, me too. Not good. I think JA rteally blew it. he should have challenged for cause and then used his peremptory later, when there was a more diverse pool that made it through, if possible.

Something I learned from my African-American friends. There are certain areas they are sensitive to. Not judging people could mean "color of skin", judging someone because they have heard "gossip". And she does not need a PhD to hear certain facts presented in this case. By day two, she'll be up to speed and sometimes it's the meekest juror that "gets it" and can see right through the person on trial. jmo

I listened to this lady. She alone has me worried about the whole case. I am trained to gauge a lot from what people say, their demeanor and answers. I don't like this one bit.

And yes, no P.h.D. is needed but she could barely understand basic questions.

I am an attorney and am shaking in my shoes. She, IMO, a classic wildcard who could hang the jury or, at best, cause a lot of frustration and discord. I would have done a WHOLE lot more to get her off the panel. But I also can't think what arguments are being made at sidebar? any idea what you could say at this point to the court? Are they trying to bring her back? I don't think that would help remove the taint.

They are done!

Well state gave their reason as her first response to the first question...but because they have let others through, it became a race thing?
I honestly think the lawyers are a little confused about using their strikes, and I know I am...

They have unlimited challenges for cause but only 10 without cause. Apparently, JA used a peremptory without trying to challenge for cause first. JB objected to it saying it was an improper peremptory because it was based on race. He won. I have never seen such an objection sustained. This means, from what I understand, that this lady is definitely on the jury.

Forgive me...I was catching up on housework. Was the juror just on the stand the one from a few days ago that said she didn't want to judge people? Or is this a different one? I'm really concerned about this.

It is. Same one.

I'm so confused. Did the State try and use a strike and was told "no". Or did they challenge without using a strike?

They apparently tried to use a strike and were denied based on race. Really bad.

 

[logicalgirl]

To this day if I smell that perfume, I want to gag. Same thing with Drakkar Noir thanks to an old boyfriend, lol!

:floorlaugh:

With me it was (Drakkar) with my teenaged daughter and her friends who poured the stuff on themselves....ah - age 13 - so magical for them.

 

[Turnadot]

I could be wrong, but I feel like HHJP accused Ashton of being a racist without actually coming out and saying it.

 

[Patty G]

Are we still clueless if they were at sidebar because of the female juror or this juror?

 

[katydid23]

Can someone please explain to me why Baez is so hellbent on having African Americans on the jury? It's not like the felon is black. Is it just because they are minorities and he is a minority?

I just don't get it... maybe I'm just slow.

I think it is because he is going to base his defense upon attacking the Law Enforcement officers. 'They lied, mishandled the evidence, made errors, jumped to conclusions about Casey being guilty.'

So he figures that minority jurors might be more inclined to believe that defense theory. imoo

 

[21merc7]

Thats interesting, ICA wants nothing to do with parents no visit, etc.

And possibly going to get thrown under the bus and or put to shame as to how she/they raised their daughter but yet, Mother still brings her clothes to court.

I'm not certain CA does this, that is just the general pattern of the clothing issue. The ruffles have suggested to many that CA does bring these clothes. I am not certain either way.

 

[LancelotLink]

But after the trial is over, do you want someone sticking a mic in her face and she says "I really didn't understand what was said in the trial and so I went along with everyone else." What kind of appeal issue does that raise?

I fear that is exactly what will happen.

 

[darcedarce]

Wow, this guy sure is an eager beaver. Should be speedy.

 

[USARDOG]

Quite a few people really do believe that "only God can judge someone."
Nothing right or wrong about it, I knew of a priest when I was a kid who believed that.

Do you think the priest would hire ICA to work in his day care center?

 

[beach]

Can someone please explain to me why Baez is so hellbent on having African Americans on the jury? It's not like the felon is black. Is it just because they are minorities and he is a minority?

I just don't get it... maybe I'm just slow.

Studies show that minorities are less trusting of LE. IOW, they might find YM, JA, etal less credible and view their testimony with suspect.

 

[ebedeeb]

I'm feeling a little confused about all this. I didn't think SA challenging was the same thing as using a strike. I thought it was the same thing the DT tried to do with a PJ, and when they were denied, they DID use a strike, whereas I got the impression JA chose to not use a strike. Am I wrong on all this?

my understanding is that any pj, no matter how many, can be dismissed "for cause" in that they dont meet the rules, such as impartiality, presumption of innocence, refuse to consider death penalty.....the judge then will dismiss them for cause. NEither side uses a "strike"

Both sides have 10 of these "strikes"....what i didnt know until just now, is that they have to defend their reasoning for using them, and the judge can deny, if he sees fit. Such as being racially motivated....

 

[sleutherontheside]

I think it is because he is going to base his defense upon attacking the Law Enforcement officers. 'They lied, mishandled the evidence, made errors, jumped to conclusions about Casey being guilty.'

So he figures that minority jurors might be more inclined to believe that defense theory. imoo

That is a play right out of Andrea Lyon's playbook.