I've been out of the country for a week and trying to catch up. Shady Lady gave me a quick update (THANK YOU!
), and I listened to 3 parts of an interview with Juror 17 (it felt like it ended abruptly, so maybe I missed some parts) as well as JM's voir dire of her. I didn't listen to JM's attempt to strike her as the headline said he asked to strike for DV bias. Based on her voir dire, I assume JSS appropriately denied that request, unless she openly confessed some bias in her written responses that JM referenced during that argument. What I can't understand is why JM didn't use one of his "free" strikes on this lady if he was so concerned about her. Normally your first "free" strikes are used on anyone you unsuccessfully asked to strike for cause.
From JM's voir dire of juror 17 relating to her husbands' criminal histories, I couldn't tell what it was that she said that was false or misleading. Can anyone fill me in on that?
Factually, or based on assumptions?
1. Assumption- She lied when she didnt raise her hand and say she knew JM.
She had to have known JM because JM prosecuted her husband for 1st degree murder in 2000. Either she was in court with her groom-to-be and saw JM, and couldnt forget him because he is JM, or her felon husband mentioned his name numerous times and she wouldnt be able to forget it.
2. She mentioned her exs 2nd degree burglary conviction to JM, but did not volunteer that her ex had been charged with 1st degree murder and aggravated assault OR that JM had prosecuted her ex.
Therefore she lied by omission (severity of a separate crime) and directly (by not acknowledging she knew JM).
Factually (draw your own inferences).
1. JM did not ask her about crimes her 2 husbands were charged with. What she was asked in her questionnaire on this and how she replied are unknown. She obviously mentioned her exs conviction for burglary on the questionnaire.
2. JM was not her exs original prosecutor (see timeline up-thread). IMO there is a great big piece missing as to why JM offered the ex the plea he did, after months of continuances and only one day of trial.
The ex was 17 years old when he was committed a 2nd degree burglary, and 18 years old when he allegedly committed 1st degree murder, a drive by shooting, and aggravated assault.
JM allowed him to plea on the 2nd degree charges, and dropped everything else. Does that make sense to you? It doesnt to me. Something is missing, and maybe that something has something to do with why 17 answered as she did. Or not.
3. She said she was separated from her husband at the time he went to prison. From what Ive read, that is untrue, if she meant the term he served for that burglary. She married him on May 29, 2000, BEFORE he went to prison on that charge. Unless she married him and then separated by the end of the same year.
4. She married him May 29, AFTER his plea deal. Does that mean she must have gone to court at least a few times and met JM there and therefore lied about knowing him? Or not.
5. She said she met her second husband, also a felon, online and after hes been out of prison for 3-4 years. I think many have said thats a lie, but couldnt figure out the basis for that and wont be trying to to either.
6. Many here seem to think she isnt really a DV victim. JM thought she was. Thats why he tried to remove her for cause. I think so too. Havent seen any hospital records or police reports thoughmaybe shell provide them in another interview?
Saw your post when I went to edit my upstream post. Reply to you= edit. Take care