Ross Harris Trial Jury Selection - Tweets, News & Discussion (Brunswick)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/22/16 Court Proceedings-Juror # 20
Court is now in recess until 10/3

Cathy ‏@courtchatter
RossHarris - Defense doesn't want her struck, Judge had Harris stand up and say HE did not want her struck. She stays IN the pool.

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris prosecutor wants Juror 20 out. Defense: "I don't like" that she had unfavorable opinions, but that was 2 yrs ago @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror 20 jumps in to add she doesn't think anyone "should just walk away scot-free" after forgetting a child, either @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris defense attorney: "Are those your opinions now?" Juror #20: "No, sir." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20: "I would just hate for someone to think I lied on purpose...I really didn't," she says. @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20, re JRH Facebook group posts on JRH: "I didn't remember my words being so forceful and harsh." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20 just doesn't recall all she posted in 2014, but says, "I did tell y'all that I judged harshly at the time." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20 Sept 2014 Facebook posting: "I think he did this on purpose and deserves the punishment for that."
 
THIS was the lady who made me come comment and wander into this trial...I knew her mouth was going to get her into trouble! :laughing:

jamiect said:
9/22/16 Court Proceedings-Juror # 20
Court is now in recess until 10/3

Cathy ‏@courtchatter
RossHarris - Defense doesn't want her struck, Judge had Harris stand up and say HE did not want her struck. She stays IN the pool.

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris prosecutor wants Juror 20 out. Defense: "I don't like" that she had unfavorable opinions, but that was 2 yrs ago @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror 20 jumps in to add she doesn't think anyone "should just walk away scot-free" after forgetting a child, either @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris defense attorney: "Are those your opinions now?" Juror #20: "No, sir." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20: "I would just hate for someone to think I lied on purpose...I really didn't," she says. @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20, re JRH Facebook group posts on JRH: "I didn't remember my words being so forceful and harsh." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20 just doesn't recall all she posted in 2014, but says, "I did tell y'all that I judged harshly at the time." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20 Sept 2014 Facebook posting: "I think he did this on purpose and deserves the punishment for that."
Click to expand...
 
[video=twitter;778967276196401152]https://twitter.com/DuffieDixon/status/778967276196401152[/video]
Duffie Dixon 11Alive ✔ @DuffieDixon
Judge in #RossHarris murder trial WILL allow 3D animated reinactment of little Cooper's death in car #11alive #hotcardeath

That should be interesting.
 
Hope4More said:
I read more and understand what you're saying about the legal context of "single scheme." It's the only (theoretical) nexus between the sets of charges, and IMO a really big reach by the State and Staley, but perhaps not so big a reach that an appeals court would consider Staley's refusal to sever an abuse of her judicial discretion.

That Harris broke the law in sexting with a minor is indisputable, and after rereading his probable cause hearing, it would seem that he did sext with the minor on the day Cooper died.

Harris also sexted with 5 of age women that day, though, which means the State could just as easily run with their "child free" argument without asking that the minor-related charges be introduced.

Given that thinking about or even wanting to be "child free" isn't a crime, and that the State is IMO going to have a difficult time proving that was Harris's state of mind, the "single scheme" argument is tenuous at best. IMO it's pretty clear the State sought to bring the charges in for precisely the reason the DT alleged-- as bad character evidence, which otherwise would be inadmissable.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you have said regarding the severing of the charges. I just don't think that it is cut and dry. Did Judge Staley make the correct ruling? I am not sure. If JRH is found guilty, it will definitely be part of the appeal. The ruling makes me very nervous.

Here's where I personally get hung up. Cooper's death was not instantaneous. When Ross left Cooper in the car, Cooper spent an extended amount of time baking in the car. I am not sure if Cooper's approximate time of death has been released, but JRH had time to realize his "mistake." Up until shortly before Cooper's death, Ross could have returned to his car, retrieved Cooper, and saved him. If we believe what has been reported, JRH spent his morning sexting with 6 different women, one of whom was a minor. JRH's sexting prevented him (at least in part) from recalling that Cooper was still in his car. Given that, the sexting is one, if not the only and main, component of criminal negligence. I believe that the jurors will decide that JRH showed a "reckless disregard" for Cooper's safety when he opted to sext instead of care for and protect Cooper. IMO JRH's behavior both in originally "forgetting" Cooper in the car and then subsequently forgetting him for the rest of the day is likely a direct resulting of his sexting. One of those girls was a minor. Why should that fact be hidden from the court? from the jurors? If the sexting evidence is admissible, why would the charges be severed? Since these were concurrent crimes and it is not out of the realm of possibility that one crime (sexting with the minor) resulted in the other (leaving Cooper in the car and his subsequent death), I don't think that the Judge Staley overreached when she denied the DT's motion to sever the charges.

Wanting a "child free" life is not criminal. However, it becomes criminal if one murders his child in pursuit of that desire. My mind is not made up on whether I believe that JRH wanted a "child free" life. Given how loose some of the parties in this case have been with words, I will wait to see what is revealed and subsequently challenged during the actual trial.

jamiect said:
9/22/16 Court Proceedings-Juror # 20
Court is now in recess until 10/3

Cathy ‏@courtchatter
RossHarris - Defense doesn't want her struck, Judge had Harris stand up and say HE did not want her struck. She stays IN the pool.

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris prosecutor wants Juror 20 out. Defense: "I don't like" that she had unfavorable opinions, but that was 2 yrs ago @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror 20 jumps in to add she doesn't think anyone "should just walk away scot-free" after forgetting a child, either @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris defense attorney: "Are those your opinions now?" Juror #20: "No, sir." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20: "I would just hate for someone to think I lied on purpose...I really didn't," she says. @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20, re JRH Facebook group posts on JRH: "I didn't remember my words being so forceful and harsh." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20 just doesn't recall all she posted in 2014, but says, "I did tell y'all that I judged harshly at the time." @wsbradio

Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters
#RossHarris Juror #20 Sept 2014 Facebook posting: "I think he did this on purpose and deserves the punishment for that."
Click to expand...

geevee said:
Juror #20 questioned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuhxKeF5ixQ&feature=youtu.be

Cathy@CourtChatter also tweeted copies of the FB posts of J#20, not sure if I can post those tweets here but you can easily find them.
Click to expand...

On another note, why does the DT want Juror 20 to remain in the pool? Juror 20 stated that she believes that JRH is guilty, has posted comments about potential sentencing, and reiterated today that she doesn't believe forgetting a child should go unpunished. Can anyone imagine what the DT's strategy is on this juror? Are they hoping that the prosecution uses one of their strikes on her? I cannot even fathom what their motivation is.
 
GA_Peach said:
On another note, why does the DT want Juror 20 to remain in the pool? Juror 20 stated that she believes that JRH is guilty, has posted comments about potential sentencing, and reiterated today that she doesn't believe forgetting a child should go unpunished. Can anyone imagine what the DT's strategy is on this juror? Are they hoping that the prosecution uses one of their strikes on her? I cannot even fathom what their motivation is.
Click to expand...


Snipped for space

Basically the prosecutor said that allowing this juror in would be inviting error. He stated that this could become an appellate issue down the road. The appellate issue he states is ineffective assistance of counsel.

You can listen to the arguments beginning at approx 28:30 in the above youtube link.
 
jamiect said:
Snipped for space

Basically the prosecutor said that allowing this juror in would be inviting error. He stated that this could become an appellate issue down the road. The appellate issue he states is ineffective assistance of counsel.

You can listen to the arguments beginning at approx 28:30 in the above youtube link.
Click to expand...

I did listen to the entire 40 minutes last night. However, the judge then asked MK to confer and provide JRH legal counsel on the issue. The judge asked JRH to stand and state whether he would like to keep the juror. JRH personally stated that he would like to keep the juror before the court. In Judge Staley's ruling, she stated that the concerns regarding this becoming an appellate issue had been addressed so she would allow the juror to remain in the pool.

Would JRH still be able to maintain an ineffective counsel argument? It makes zero sense to me despite understanding and agreeing with the prosecutor's claim. Is the DT purposely trying to poison the jury pool?
 
GA_Peach said:
I did listen to the entire 40 minutes last night. However, the judge then asked MK to confer and provide JRH legal counsel on the issue. The judge asked JRH to stand and state whether he would like to keep the juror. JRH personally stated that he would like to keep the juror before the court. In Judge Staley's ruling, she stated that the concerns regarding this becoming an appellate issue had been addressed so she would allow the juror to remain in the pool.

Would JRH still be able to maintain an ineffective counsel argument? It makes zero sense to me despite understanding and agreeing with the prosecutor's claim. Is the DT purposely trying to poison the jury pool?
Click to expand...


Harris, if convicted, can argue anything he wants when and if he's convicted. Doesn't mean he'd have any chance of winning that argument, and IMO, Staley locked down all post conviction avenues of redress on the issue of juror #20.

Most importantly, she had the defense state for the record that their decision was strategic. Appellate courts typically impute strategy rather than attorney error anyway, but having it stated explicitly, and having the defendant concur, also on the record, almost certainly shuts down any post conviction recourse.

I watched all 40 minutes as well, and agree with the defense's take on juror #20. She seems hinky as all get out. Way too eager to get on the jury, way too "forgetful" of the strong opinions she'd expressed online about his guilt and punishment, and way too many protestations that she was not lying and not a liar.

Staley refused to remove her for cause. Doesn't mean the State can't use one of its preemptory strikes to get her off if they're still concerned, and the only reason I can imagine why the DT didn't want her removed for cause has to do with their strategy for preemptive strikes.
 
GA_Peach said:
I don't disagree with anything you have said regarding the severing of the charges. I just don't think that it is cut and dry. Did Judge Staley make the correct ruling? I am not sure. If JRH is found guilty, it will definitely be part of the appeal. The ruling makes me very nervous.

Here's where I personally get hung up. Cooper's death was not instantaneous. When Ross left Cooper in the car, Cooper spent an extended amount of time baking in the car. I am not sure if Cooper's approximate time of death has been released, but JRH had time to realize his "mistake." Up until shortly before Cooper's death, Ross could have returned to his car, retrieved Cooper, and saved him. If we believe what has been reported, JRH spent his morning sexting with 6 different women, one of whom was a minor. JRH's sexting prevented him (at least in part) from recalling that Cooper was still in his car. Given that, the sexting is one, if not the only and main, component of criminal negligence. I believe that the jurors will decide that JRH showed a "reckless disregard" for Cooper's safety when he opted to sext instead of care for and protect Cooper. IMO JRH's behavior both in originally "forgetting" Cooper in the car and then subsequently forgetting him for the rest of the day is likely a direct resulting of his sexting. One of those girls was a minor. Why should that fact be hidden from the court? from the jurors? If the sexting evidence is admissible, why would the charges be severed? Since these were concurrent crimes and it is not out of the realm of possibility that one crime (sexting with the minor) resulted in the other (leaving Cooper in the car and his subsequent death), I don't think that the Judge Staley overreached when she denied the DT's motion to sever the charges.

Wanting a "child free" life is not criminal. However, it becomes criminal if one murders his child in pursuit of that desire. My mind is not made up on whether I believe that JRH wanted a "child free" life. Given how loose some of the parties in this case have been with words, I will wait to see what is revealed and subsequently challenged during the actual trial.





On another note, why does the DT want Juror 20 to remain in the pool? Juror 20 stated that she believes that JRH is guilty, has posted comments about potential sentencing, and reiterated today that she doesn't believe forgetting a child should go unpunished. Can anyone imagine what the DT's strategy is on this juror? Are they hoping that the prosecution uses one of their strikes on her? I cannot even fathom what their motivation is.
Click to expand...



We seem to agree more than not about severing. To answer your question, though, "why should the fact Harris was sexting with a minor be "hidden from the jury?"

Not allowing that info in, much less bringing in the related charges, wouldn't be hiding anything relevant to the case from the jury, IMO. That Harris sexted five other women that day more than suffices for the State to argue anything it wants relating to motive, etc. On the other hand, it's very difficult to believe jurors won't be prejudiced by the fact of those charges, and being asked to deliberate those charges at the same time they are considering the charges relating directly to Cooper's death.

I do think there would be a better argument for not severing if Harris had begun sexting with a minor on the day of or even within days before Cooper's death, as that might suggest a growing recklessness or some such.

As is.....just don't see it.
 
I really hope the prosecution is not going off "in the weeds" with the whole sexting/child free life thing. I don't know the why behind poor little Cooper's death (fwiw, I believe he's guilty, but I don't believe it was because of the sexting), but the how seems pretty clear cut. I could not imagine any parent intentionally harming their child, but seeing a re-enactment of RH's extremely short drive from CFA to his office was all it took to convince me that he didn't simply "forget" his child. I would not need a motive proven. I'm concerned this one is going to go the way of Casey Anthony with jurors who are confused instead of convinced.
 
Hope4More said:
Harris, if convicted, can argue anything he wants when and if he's convicted. Doesn't mean he'd have any chance of winning that argument, and IMO, Staley locked down all post conviction avenues of redress on the issue of juror #20.

Most importantly, she had the defense state for the record that their decision was strategic. Appellate courts typically impute strategy rather than attorney error anyway, but having it stated explicitly, and having the defendant concur, also on the record, almost certainly shuts down any post conviction recourse.

I watched all 40 minutes as well, and agree with the defense's take on juror #20. She seems hinky as all get out. Way too eager to get on the jury, way too "forgetful" of the strong opinions she'd expressed online about his guilt and punishment, and way too many protestations that she was not lying and not a liar.

Staley refused to remove her for cause. Doesn't mean the State can't use one of its preemptory strikes to get her off if they're still concerned, and the only reason I can imagine why the DT didn't want her removed for cause has to do with their strategy for preemptive strikes.
Click to expand...

RBBM

The reason you gave above is the only thing that I could imagine. If I were on the prosecution, I wouldn't use a preemptory strike to get rid of a juror who believed the defendant was guilty and should face the maximum sentence possible. There was a time and a place to strike for cause, and the DT fought that motion. I would let the DT use one of their preemptory strikes, OR I would let her sit on the jury. I have listened to a large portion of the juror interviews, and there are quite a few jurors that jump out as people who may be exceedingly sympathetic to the defendant. I would use my preemptory strikes on those jurors.

Does anyone know how alternates are picked in GA?
 
GA_Peach said:
RBBM

The reason you gave above is the only thing that I could imagine. If I were on the prosecution, I wouldn't use a preemptory strike to get rid of a juror who believed the defendant was guilty and should face the maximum sentence possible. There was a time and a place to strike for cause, and the DT fought that motion. I would let the DT use one of their preemptory strikes, OR I would let her sit on the jury. I have listened to a large portion of the juror interviews, and there are quite a few jurors that jump out as people who may be exceedingly sympathetic to the defendant. I would use my preemptory strikes on those jurors.

Does anyone know how alternates are picked in GA?
Click to expand...


Alternates go through the exact same process of voir dire (from questionnaire through peremptory strikes). Judges are allowed to decide the number of alternate jurors required; reporters for the Atlanta Constitutional Journal have written Staley will have no more than 4 alternates.

Alternates replace jurors (if necessary) in the same order in which they were selected. So, the first alternate selected is alternate #1 and will, if necessary, replace the first juror who leaves the final jury panel.

--------
Juror #20. I can't imagine why the DT would object to 20 being removed for cause, then turn around and waste one of their strikes to remove her. I also don't think the DT was stupid enough to deliberately keep a hostile juror in order to try to lay the foundation for appeals, not least because they already know they are up against competent State counsel and a very unsympathetic judge.

So....still don't get why they didn't send 20 packing. My last guess, and it's a feeble one, is that perhaps the DT is playing a mind game with the State and 20. The last questioning of 20 sounded pretty ironic, really.

Here was a pro-State potential juror they should have wanted to keep, but instead the State made it clear to 20 he didn't believe her, didn't think she was being honest, and didn't want her on the jury. She seemed quite defensive about being perceived as having lied, and ironically, it was Kilgore who kept reassuring her he understood, and believed her.

Can't imagine it would be worth the risk of having a juror with her views seated, but maybe perhaps Kilgore is trying to force the State into using a strike to get rid of a juror who may have been alienated and offended enough by the State's disapproval of her to at least be neutralized, if not more receptive to the defense?

Jury selection really is an art form. The DT can see jurors' body language and facial expressions we can't. Maybe Kilgore went with gut instinct about how to play #20.
 
Hope4More said:
Alternates go through the exact same process of voir dire (from questionnaire through peremptory strikes). Judges are allowed to decide the number of alternate jurors required; reporters for the Atlanta Constitutional Journal have written Staley will have no more than 4 alternates.

Alternates replace jurors (if necessary) in the same order in which they were selected. So, the first alternate selected is alternate #1 and will, if necessary, replace the first juror who leaves the final jury panel.


--------
Juror #20. I can't imagine why the DT would object to 20 being removed for cause, then turn around and waste one of their strikes to remove her. I also don't think the DT was stupid enough to deliberately keep a hostile juror in order to try to lay the foundation for appeals, not least because they already know they are up against competent State counsel and a very unsympathetic judge.

So....still don't get why they didn't send 20 packing. My last guess, and it's a feeble one, is that perhaps the DT is playing a mind game with the State and 20. The last questioning of 20 sounded pretty ironic, really.

Here was a pro-State potential juror they should have wanted to keep, but instead the State made it clear to 20 he didn't believe her, didn't think she was being honest, and didn't want her on the jury. She seemed quite defensive about being perceived as having lied, and ironically, it was Kilgore who kept reassuring her he understood, and believed her.

Can't imagine it would be worth the risk of having a juror with her views seated, but maybe perhaps Kilgore is trying to force the State into using a strike to get rid of a juror who may have been alienated and offended enough by the State's disapproval of her to at least be neutralized, if not more receptive to the defense?

Jury selection really is an art form. The DT can see jurors' body language and facial expressions we can't. Maybe Kilgore went with gut instinct about how to play #20.
Click to expand...

[BBM & emphasis added]

Hope4 -- OT -- BUT IMPORTANT ...
Thanks for setting us straight on the correct spelling of "peremptory" strike(s)! (That's why you are paid the big bucks on this forum! :loveyou:)

I (used to) pride myself in at least being a good speller -- never mind the definition or pronunciation, which I never "got" no matter how many times I looked up a word! :facepalm:.

I guess I need to go back to the dictionary, as I saw no problem with the incorrect spelling: "preemptory" strike(s)!

All you 'sleuther guys amaze me. Each and every one of you is smart in a different way. I learn something new every time I read here.
 
GA_Peach said:
I did listen to the entire 40 minutes last night. However, the judge then asked MK to confer and provide JRH legal counsel on the issue. The judge asked JRH to stand and state whether he would like to keep the juror. JRH personally stated that he would like to keep the juror before the court. In Judge Staley's ruling, she stated that the concerns regarding this becoming an appellate issue had been addressed so she would allow the juror to remain in the pool.

Would JRH still be able to maintain an ineffective counsel argument? It makes zero sense to me despite understanding and agreeing with the prosecutor's claim. Is the DT purposely trying to poison the jury pool?
Click to expand...
Perhaps DT is trying to poison the jury pool. Maybe DT has "MPD". Seriously? can we discuss this? B.i.F. you remember what arkansasmimi said. ;)
 
Hope4More said:
Alternates go through the exact same process of voir dire (from questionnaire through peremptory strikes). Judges are allowed to decide the number of alternate jurors required; reporters for the Atlanta Constitutional Journal have written Staley will have no more than 4 alternates.

Alternates replace jurors (if necessary) in the same order in which they were selected. So, the first alternate selected is alternate #1 and will, if necessary, replace the first juror who leaves the final jury panel.

--------
Juror #20. I can't imagine why the DT would object to 20 being removed for cause, then turn around and waste one of their strikes to remove her. I also don't think the DT was stupid enough to deliberately keep a hostile juror in order to try to lay the foundation for appeals, not least because they already know they are up against competent State counsel and a very unsympathetic judge.

So....still don't get why they didn't send 20 packing. My last guess, and it's a feeble one, is that perhaps the DT is playing a mind game with the State and 20. The last questioning of 20 sounded pretty ironic, really.

Here was a pro-State potential juror they should have wanted to keep, but instead the State made it clear to 20 he didn't believe her, didn't think she was being honest, and didn't want her on the jury. She seemed quite defensive about being perceived as having lied, and ironically, it was Kilgore who kept reassuring her he understood, and believed her.

Can't imagine it would be worth the risk of having a juror with her views seated, but maybe perhaps Kilgore is trying to force the State into using a strike to get rid of a juror who may have been alienated and offended enough by the State's disapproval of her to at least be neutralized, if not more receptive to the defense?

Jury selection really is an art form. The DT can see jurors' body language and facial expressions we can't. Maybe Kilgore went with gut instinct about how to play #20.
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear in my original question, and I apologize for the confusion. Out of the jurors that are not struck, how is it determined which will ones will be alternates?


SandyQLS said:
Perhaps DT is trying to poison the jury pool. Maybe DT has "MPD". Seriously? can we discuss this? B.i.F. you remember what arkansasmimi said. ;)
Click to expand...

:seeya::loveyou::dance:

I am excited to see you back on WS! I hope to see you in this forum for the trial.
 
What the heck is a child free life google search?

Cooper was a toddler. So wouldn't Ross remember what it was like being child-free?

The state is reaching heavily on that aspect. Jmo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 545 (members: 180, guests: 365)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
365
Total visitors
545
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,705
Messages
18,257,127
Members
234,732
Latest member
Helpfulplatformz
Back
Top