This may tell us whether or not JB actually believes he can get ICA acquitted or is simply trying to avoid the DP for her in this trial. Juror 3016 .teacher, mid 30s seeking masters in assisting the mentally challenged. Has the opinion that ICA is guilty, but could put that aside. But he is against the Death Penalty. HHJP attempts to rehabilitate him on the DP: Hhjp: If those facts and circumstances indicated for you that death was the proper sentence could you recommend that? ans: NO HHJP: why not? Ans: Well I know its the law, but .Ive never chosen a field where Id be able to do something like that. Ahhh..its something that Ive never felt it was my decision to do. It would be very difficult. HHJP: understands how difficult it would be, but remember when I told you, you would never be required or compelled to recommend a sentence of death? What were trying to ascertain, sir, is could you consider it and if you felt it was necessary , DO IT? Ans: Well I guess I could CONSIDER IT. Ummm..you know, being the one to actually have to make that decision it would be pretty tough for me. HHJP: Noone knows what they might do if put in that position. My question for you is whether or not you could consider it and not just automatically say no? Ans: Well, I guess I could consider it . Yadda yadda yadda. It would be difficult to do. But he never says he could DO IT. Vinny says it sounds like a juror that might be very good for the dt. But Casey Jordan says this: If Jose Baez feels he really cannot get ICA acquitted, he may accept this juror (and not back strike) because he knows the juror wont vote for the DP. So no back strike of 3016 might be a major tell on JBs real goal in this trial. (Which seems absolutely feasible to me.) And,btw, the judge didnt really rehabilitate 3016. 3016 never said he could vote for the DP at all. so, in effect, the sa seemed to trade, "I believe she's guilty but can weigh the evidence and decide" for "but I'll never vote for the Death Penalty."