Ultimately it was JSS who denied Juan's motion to excuse J138/17 for cause. When asked, J138/J17 said she thought she could be fair and impartial and not use her DV situation and feelings to determine an opinion in the JA case. JSS chose to believe that. JM saw the level of emotion J17 was experiencing and wanted her gone.
That's how this went down.
To me it did not appear that the issue had anything to do with husband #1 getting convicted of a crime, nor husband #2. DV was the red flag flying in this situation, based on the voir dire. In fact, looking at how she voted in the mitigators, it was age of defendant and 'prior abuse' as the 2 mitigating factors J17 chose to believe. That aligns exactly with the issue JM raised during her voir dire.
J17 was predisposed to seeing abuse and violence, based on her own background and emotional response.