Countdown to Trial

[Mamabear1963]

In a perfect world she would be banned from the courtroom. She has tried all kinds of troublemaking, from smuggling the bracelet into Casey, raising her hand to speak to JS, tattling on Ashton for "leading" Dr.Vass's answers. It will never end with her. At least GA knows how to sit still and understands the concept of not controlling all things.

Bold and colored by me:
I couldn't resist...I think it is because CA taught GA how to behave. :seeya:

 

[LambChop]

I have been selected on jury trials for criminal and civil.Two death penalty cases also. The attys questioned me by myself with the judge and the defendant in the room. They ask about family history,any kind of criminal activity in your family,had I been the victim of crime in my life or my immediate family (thank God NO) Family dynamics and they looked me right in the eye and I in turn look them right in the eye. The prosecutors also asked me about the death penalty and asked could you sentence a person to death and they look at your demeanor in answering the question. They also gave me a brief synoposis about the case and asked if I could be impartial. I hate to get jury notices,(must be my honest face) cause I have never been excused from jury duty,I have always been selected to serve. I live in a major city in the northeast so I have gotten my fair share of jury duty in my lifetime.IMHO jury duty is nothing to sneeze about or be taken lightly,some of the pictures and info I have seen in some of the trials I served on made me cry when I got back to the jury room. There is also the in-fighting when it is time to deliberate,you have some people who clearly lied about different things when going through voir dire,just to get on the jury. In one criminal case I was given a written questionnaire and when I went in the court with the atty's and judge they reviewed the info with me,some people based on that questionnaire were not seen again,so I guess they were not selected.:twocents:

If you are on a jury and are aware that someone lied about their information (exp: I told them I was not related to anyone in LE but my cousin works for the FBI) then you can ask to speak with the judge in private. Anyone on that jury who knows someone has lied just to get onto the jury has an obligation to reveal that information to the court. It could be something insignificant but the judge should be aware of it regardless. jmo

 

[wyome]

I remember reading somewhere that this trial is estimated to take 4 months. Can anyone tell me if that's still the estimate or if I even heard that right in the first place?

If it is that long, I wonder if they choose more than 2 alternates for that length of trial. I was only on a 4-day trial, and one of the jurors just didn't show up one day -- delayed the court a whole hour trying to contact/wait for her. Never did find out if it was accident, or daycare or family issue, or what....but stuff like that happens.

 

[Murdock]

Has anyone here actually been through the questioning for voire dire (sp?) in a criminal trial? If so, could you please share with us what type of questions you were asked?

Many years ago I got called for a DP case that had gotten a lot of local media attention. The first thing I got was just a notice saying when and where to report. It didn't give any details about the case.

After all the potential jurors were "checked in" we were split up & sent into seperate rooms. This is where we were told that it was a DP case and that we might have seen some news about it.

We then filled out lenghty questionnaires. The questions I remember were about our personal opinions on the DP, what we had heard about the case, where we had heard this information, (TV, or newspapers - internet wasn't yet something most people had), if we had already formed an opinion, and a few personal questions about any criminals among our friends and family.
There was also a seperate questionnaire that asked if we would be able to serve on lengthy trial.

We were then reunited with the other potential jurors, who had filled out their questionnaires in a seperate room. We sat for several hours in a big room with magazines and vending machines. They then told some people they could leave & the rest of us were divided into smaller groups of about 15.
Each group then went into the courtroom, where we sat in the jury box. The prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants, and judge were all there.

The judge said some stuff, and then one of the prosecutors, and one of defense attorneys. I don't remember what they said. Something about the importance of serving on a jury and keeping an open mind.

We were then sent out of the room & had to go back in one at a time to answer questions individually. I was only asked questions by the prosecutor. At the time I was against the DP and had answered so on my questionnaire. The prosecutor only asked me about the DP. I was then dismissed.

The night before the trial was to begin there was a plea deal made.

This was in Pennsylvania, but I imagine a lot of the questions would be the same because of the publicity, length & DP.

 

[Whome?]

If you are on a jury and are aware that someone lied about their information (exp: I told them I was not related to anyone in LE but my cousin works for the FBI) then you can ask to speak with the judge in private. Anyone on that jury who knows someone has lied just to get onto the jury has an obligation to reveal that information to the court. It could be something insignificant but the judge should be aware of it regardless. jmo

In my particular case, when we convicted the person of 1st degree murder,and then went to the D/P phase, some jurors stated they could not give someone the death sentence. That question was asked during voir dire and if you stated no,you were not selected. So IMHO some people on the jury lied just to get on the jury,knowing they could not vote on the D/P.At that point in the trial it is too late,to change jurors so the decision is what it is.:twocents:

 

[MissJames]

I've :rocker: had the thrill of sitting for a civil case.........believe it or not, a medical malpractice case, no less! This occurred back in the day when I was a "newbie" Medical Technologist* (you all know us as the "lab people") and was in the process of getting into Med School. (Remember: a medical malpractice case!)

The questions were PERSONAL: my relationship or knowledge of the participants, my relationship or knowledge to/with members of LE, judiciary or in this case, the hospital involved and my detailed educational & work background. Since I answered honestly (there is SOMETHING (and for me still is) about sitting in the witness chair that DEMANDS truth, so NOW of course, NO WAY was I going to be chosen.....BUT surprise BOTH sides wanted me! (and for the record, I did NOT want to be a part of the "action")
The case involved a death, determined avoidable had the physician followed the standards of practice and also had he not been CAUGHT during the trial "updating" the medical record, the fiscal award might have been significantly less (the decedent was a 67 y/o woman).

Naturally I :innocent: asked one of the judge's legal clerks after the trial what rational was used in picking me and the clerk (who sat in on the voire dire) stated that BOTH SIDES ASSUMED I'd be able to TRANSLATE the technical jargonese since the case directly involved blood transfusions given too late/lax hemostasis monitoring/ & how the "attending" physician is the one "in charge" no matter if he/she is NOT on site!

:floorlaugh: Since THAT time, every time I get a notice, I bring it with me when I'm testifying on some other case & the SA gets a judge to "null it" :great:


:woohoo:* YEP, just like Arpad Vass, Ph.D once was!:woohoo:

I just love your posts! :great:

 

[kushka]

In my particular case, when we convicted the person of 1st degree murder,and then went to the D/P phase, some jurors stated they could not give someone the death sentence. That question was asked during voir dire and if you stated no,you were not selected. So IMHO some people on the jury lied just to get on the jury,knowing they could not vote on the D/P.At that point in the trial it is too late,to change jurors so the decision is what it is.:twocents:

Or it could be a case of a person just not knowing themselves as well as they thought they did. That is what happened to me the time I was a juror in a capital case. I truly thought I could sentence someone to death and answered accordingly, but when it came down to actually doing so, I found I could not.

 

[sua_sponte]

Or it could be a case of a person just not knowing themselves as well as they thought they did. That is what happened to me the time I was a juror in a capital case. I truly thought I could sentence someone to death and answered accordingly, but when it came down to actually doing so, I found I could not.

But, could you not do it because of reasonable doubt as to the crime, or did you develop an aversion to the dp such that you couldn't vote for dp even if you were sure the defendant was guilty of the crime (or because you thought one could never be "sure" of guilt)?

If it was the former, then you answered the question appropriately. If it was the latter, did you inform the judge when you discovered your bias?

 

[Softail]

28 Days until jury selection! 36 Days until trial Casey!


:great::great::great:

 

[logicalgirl]

I just love your posts! :great:

Ohhh - MissJames - just saw your sig line!!! Big Hugs.....:blowkiss:

 

[logicalgirl]

28 Days until jury selection! 36 Days until trial Casey!


:great::great::great:

Isn't it amazing??? The date like any "red-letter" day always seems so far in the distance and kaboom - it is suddenly zooming towards us at incredible speed and we are rushing frantically to get things done in time.

..................................:fireworks:

I imagine the DT is feeling this way even more than we are! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Mamabear1963]

I can hardly believe it is that close!!! Wonder if JB is getting a mite bit nervous.

 

[pip]

It sounds like the City of Orlando is expecting a fairground like atmosphere around the courthouse when the trial starts. A task force is meeting to talk about anticipated issues.
I wonder if LA and Click N Park will be managing transportation for the event? Perhaps ICA herself has her hand in the event planning as well.. Now that would be irony..

 

[Tulessa]

Isn't it amazing??? The date like any "red-letter" day always seems so far in the distance and kaboom - it is suddenly zooming towards us at incredible speed and we are rushing frantically to get things done in time.

..................................:fireworks:

I imagine the DT is feeling this way even more than we are! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Oh Gawd you guys. Please pray that I have the strength to watch this. I feel myself pulling away & I'm not liking this feeling. Hubby says it's bringing focus to my brother's case, but I just don't know.

 

[Whome?]

Oh Gawd you guys. Please pray that I have the strength to watch this. I feel myself pulling away & I'm not liking this feeling. Hubby says it's bringing focus to my brother's case, but I just don't know.

:therethere: You can do it there will be alot of people going through similar emotions on this board so you will not be alone in whatever feelings you have.:twocents:

 

[Tulessa]

:therethere: You can do it there will be alot of people going through similar emotions on this board so you will not be alone in whatever feelings you have.:twocents:

Thank you Whome?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If anyone wants a better idea of the trial publicity:

2000 media personnel applied for credentials for the OKC Bombing Trial. It was covered by 74 media outlets. 400 media personnel applied for credentials for the Peterson Trial. I'm not sure how many media outlets covered it, but if I do some math based on OKC, it would probably be like 20-30 media outlets? For Casey's trial, there are 500 media personnel who have applied for coverage so that looks to be about 30-40 media outlets.

Local media TV news can get up to 25-30 people credentials for a trial, while big national magazines may just get 2-3 personnel credentials.

So I'm guessing: TruTV, GMA, Today Show, Nancy Grace, Newsweek, Jane Velez Mitchell, People, AC 360, Greta, Geraldo, Orlando Sentinel, WFTV, WESH, My Fox Orlando, 13 News, WKMG, and then local media outlets throughout Florida. That would probably equal up to like 30-40 media outlets, when you consider that each local area has about 5 local news stations and one newspaper.

Does that make sense? :waitasec:

ETA: For OJ's trial, there were 1000 media credentials given out. Even though OKC had double the amount of media credentials, OJ's trial got a lot more media coverage. The reason for that is just because a media outlet gets credentials for a trial, it doesn't mean they are going to cover every day of the trial. They may just cover the opening statements and the verdict, but they still need credentials to do so.

 

[MissJames]

Oh Gawd you guys. Please pray that I have the strength to watch this. I feel myself pulling away & I'm not liking this feeling. Hubby says it's bringing focus to my brother's case, but I just don't know.

Hubby is one smart guy.
You don't have to watch it. You can read here and download the must see portions.

 

[LinasK]

It sounds like the City of Orlando is expecting a fairground like atmosphere around the courthouse when the trial starts. A task force is meeting to talk about anticipated issues.
I wonder if LA and Click N Park will be managing transportation for the event? Perhaps ICA herself has her hand in the event planning as well.. Now that would be irony..

I suggested she could run the Kodak photo booth...
:seeya:OooohOoooH! She could also sell Monster and Red Bull!:great::floorlaugh:

 

[RR0004]

Thank you Whome?

Yep...we'll stick together and pull each other through.