2011.05.13 - Jury Selection DAY FIVE Afternoon Session

JSR · May 13, 2011

TotallyObsessed said:
OK OK OK....everybody calm down about the "juror".....she isn't even on the final panel yet, right? Won't the state be able to strike her without cause.....? I mean, games not over yet, right??????????????????? Lawyers? Anybody?

No, I don't believe the SA can strike her. They already tried to use their peremptory strike and HHJP denied their challenge.

Intermezzo · May 13, 2011

JSR said:
I could not agree more with your post. That lady doesn't belong on this jury for many reasons, none of which involve her race. None of us here knew her race and we all came to the same conclusion that she can't grasp the issues that will be presented.

IMO
Listening to her the other day...she should have been excused then.

Leila · May 13, 2011

gitana1 said:
I'm sorry. Still stunned and hung up on the last juror. It all happened so fast. Mistrial is now a huge, huge possibility to me in this case. I thought justice was coming soon and now I am very worried that there is a good possibility it will have to wait for a couple of years. Sorry to be so dramatic but my professional instinct is very worried.

I have a lunch meeting to go to in a few and hopefully I will feel less negatively later on but for now I have lost my enthusiasm.

I think the state will use one of their 10 dismissals to dismiss her.

PAXIMUS · May 13, 2011

gitana1 said:
I'm sorry. Still stunned and hung up on the last juror. It all happened so fast. Mistrial is now a huge, huge possibility to me in this case. I thought justice was coming soon and now I am very worried that there is a good possibility it will have to wait for a couple of years. Sorry to be so dramatic but my professional instinct is very worried.

I have a lunch meeting to go to in a few and hopefully I will feel less negatively later on but for now I have lost my enthusiasm.

I think youre getting way ahead of yourself.

krisskross · May 13, 2011

USARDOG said:
Voir dire is such an important part of a case. I prey there is justice for Caylee, I'd feel really bad if ICA gets to slide on this because of a wild card juror.

She wouldnt slide....would be a mistrial surely.

I think the defense are hoping and preparing for this, with the hope that the State would then deal on accidental death/coverup.

Tulessa · May 13, 2011

Kim please use your ray gun on her. I am dead serious.

Chiquita71 · May 13, 2011

AF: expert psychs. any bad experiences with them that would make you not listen?

no.

AF: every decision in a capitol case is important. will you bring the same importance to other things in life?

yes.

AF: is there any reason in your back ground that would cause you to be anything other than fair and impartial in this case?

no

Patty G · May 13, 2011

sleutherontheside said:
Can we get an exit ramp warning??? Like......next exit......in 5-4-3-2-

:great:

For sure. I will let you all know when I set my timer.

Bon · May 13, 2011

Just read where C & G may consider filing a lawsuit against Brad C., their former attorney for divulging the families dynamics and dysfunction in the media.

sleutherontheside · May 13, 2011

See what Ann Finnell just did...

She said the STATE would present victim impact evidence.

AF knows full well that KC's family will support her and not Caylee....so she is planting the seed that the victim's family will appeal to you. WHEN the VICTIM'S family DOES NOT.....
the juror will be led to an assumption and refer back to AF's words during jury selection.

Bingo....NOW I know why the DT has spent SO MUCH FRACKING time on victim impact.

They are setting the jurors up for the statements that will NEVER COME.

Subliminal suggestions.

TiaM · May 13, 2011

Tulessa said:
I can't take much of her.

She does lull me to sleep, but I find her so much less objectionable than Mason or Baez.

At least she has appeared professional, and seems to comes across as believing in doing her job to save ICA's life, because ICA is entitled to a defense.

As opposed to the reasons Mason and Baez seem to be in this, which are not as noble and too lengthy to list here.

IMO

PAXIMUS · May 13, 2011

Leila said:
I think the state will use one of their 10 dismissals to dismiss her.

Perry overruled it I believe as a racial dismissal. She is staying.

nursebeeme · May 13, 2011

sleutherontheside said:
Right next to the chin has now fused to the chest smilie.

I actually put my head on my desk!!! And I have to work tonight....

(((oh... and I need a chiropractor too!!!!)))

reasonable · May 13, 2011

ZsaZsa said:
I'm sure he does. But if you watch that exchange he revealed his own bias very clearly. I have admired him since we first saw him, but I think we saw a weakness there and it offended JA (and me). I am very anti-racist people, but it's not good to have an AA on the Jury just to be 'fair' if that particular person is one that does not seem to be able to grasp the simplest of theories.
If 11 of the Jurors were AA that would be fine with me, but if they then put a dumb white person on the Jury to ensure diversity I would be just as annoyed.

I am sorry to disagree about the court's "bias". What happened was perfectly correct. And had nothing to do, in my opinion, with the judge favoring any lawyer, side or race. It was a legal challenge made by the DT (CM) asking JA to justify that his striking of this potential juror was not based on her race. JA, IMO, had not asked enough questions to come up with a reason that would have passed muster with an appellate court. So the judge did what was correct and disallowed the strike of this juror by the state. It had nothing to do with bias. even by the state. There were great reasons why the state didn't want her, none of which were her race. But because, as the court put on the record, she was in a protected class (AA), you have to do a little more to completely avoid the appearance that her race was the issue. Same thing if someone strikes a woman because they want an all male jury for a particular case. You have to be able to show that you had another reason to strike her, not her gender.

This judge was correct. my opinion only.

logicalgirl · May 13, 2011

Mama-cita said:
If you do that throughout trial you'll have buns of steel! Make an exercise video!!!!

What a special one for WS and the trial? Hey good idea! LG's bucket list - emphasis on the bucket!!!:great:

Tulessa · May 13, 2011

Here's to Kimster's ray gun!! :great:

epiphany · May 13, 2011

Judge: u said u can't consider age as a mitigating factor. correct?
P Juror: correct

Apex-mom · May 13, 2011

AF's droning, monotone, overly-soft-marshmellow tone is putting me to sleep. I think the pot jurors don't understand the question because it gets lost in her monotonous tone!

sleutherontheside · May 13, 2011

Patty G said:
IIRC, the state only has enough money to keep the doors open to the end of June; unless I missed the latest update with regards to more money being available for a longer time.

It's OK Patty G. becasue the new fiscal year starts after.

nursebeeme · May 13, 2011

Bon said:
Just read where C & G may consider filing a lawsuit against Brad C., their former attorney for divulging the families dynamics and dysfunction in the media.

do you have a link?

2011.05.13 - Jury Selection DAY FIVE Afternoon Session

Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Registered user

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Retired WS Staff

New Member

Retired WS Staff

Calm and Watchful Now

Registered user

Registered User

New Member

Peace Hawk

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Retired WS Staff

Registered User

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics