rabidstoat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Messages
- 322
- Reaction score
- 984
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20502089,00.htmlCan someone please show a reliable source of the jury's info. The one site I read did not say #4 cannot judge people.
The never-married African-American woman is in her late 40s and lives alone. Deeply religious, she did not want to be selected, saying, "I don't like to judge people." Anthony's defense fought to keep her on the jury, where she shook her head as she heard about Anthony's repeated lies.
Though actually, I think she qualified it slightly by saying that she didn't like to judge people based on what others said. A lot of the trial is expert testimony explaining evidence, though. And she sounded very reluctant, so that has a lot of people worried.
What happened was, she got up and one of the first questions asked had her saying that she didn't like to judge people, and expressed extreme reluctance about it. The State, at that point, decided this was no good for the jury from their perspective, and asked next to no questions. Defense asked almost nothing to.
State went to try to strike her for cause (not being able to judge), and it was denied. So they then went to use one of the ten strikes each side got, the ones that don't require a reason.
However, the catch on those is that you can't exclude based on age, race, and some other things like that. The woman is black, so CM immediately objected and said it was racial bias. HHJP agreed, and State was not allowed to use their strike. They did try to use it a second time, but was denied for the same reason (racial bias). So she's on the jury, and as one of the first twelve, she is not an alternate.
I don't know anyone who thought it was racial bias, personally. I mean, she said she can't judge, I don't think the State would care if she was black, white, or purple, if she can't judge that would lead one to think that she'd be reluctant to judge one guilty -- especially combined with deep religious feelings, and the whole 'only God can truly judge a person' attitude some might claim. Though, I do agree that since race was made such an issue of by the Defense, it could be potentially perceived as racial bias in the sense that if there was an appeal, that could cause a problem. I think the judge was being overly cautious in his ruling, personally.
Editing to add that if you look at juror profiles, they list occupations or previous occupations for retired persons. Except for Juror 4. That's only ever listed as 'unknown' or left blank. No one even questioned her enough to know that about her!