Each side has 10 strikes they can use without cause.
No. They can use their strikes without cause as long as it does not pertain to race. The state has used their strike. It has been denied due to race.
Each side has 10 strikes they can use without cause.
ITA. Her answers went from what she thought to what she thought everyone wanted to hear. She's a pleaser.
I'm so confused. Did the State try and use a strike and was told "no". Or did they challenge without using a strike?Each side has 10 strikes they can use without cause.
BBM.
That's the problem. She's not going to want to judge people based of other people's accounts. She said she doesn't like to judge others from what other people say. And that's EXACTLY what jurors do, and what they're supposed to do.
They are having issues with RB. Looks like a disagreement. AF over to RB now. ICA looks upset that she could sit with RB.
Not exactly true, I guess. Judge can ask the reason, which he did...and here we are, he disallowed it as racial.
Please address the professionals in the court room with their PROPER names. Rosie is Rosie, or any form of her name and nothing else, etc.
A little self-editing will keep this thread moving forward.
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.
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.