SA peremptory challenge denied

[katydid23]

Am I correct when I say that on her first round before the court this lady said..............."My religion won't allow me to stand in judgement of another person" or words to that effect?

I remember discussing those that had been before the court in the first round, and I stated that if she felt she could not stand in judgement of another person, she would definitely not be able to vote for the death penalty.

You are correct. She did say that. But then the judge 'walked her through' the correct responses and rehabilitated her. But Ashton did not feel that the change was sincere, and I agree with him. But unfortunately he did not question her enough to bring that out. I think he was trying to save time and trying not to confront her too strongly, which is good, since she may now be in the jury box.

 

[cluciano63]

Well, at least we know who threw the race card into the mix which was actually quite ridiculous considering that juror #1019 just so happens to be of African-American heritage as well. All this amounts to is that Mason wanted a chance to showboat.

The judge jumped on it very quickly. I almost think he would have said it himself and he was very firm with the state about, no argument allowed.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The way I understand it, if the defense screams racism, that's it. Which they certainly will if the state challenges this lady for anything. Makes absolutely no sense to me and is totally insulting to JA.

And after all of the indulgence in JB and CM's utterly offensive, scheming NONSENSE for months on end, he really shut JA up pretty quick.Yes, HHJP has kept things on track and tends to rule with the SA (because they are right) he indulges the DT with hearing them rehash arguments 3 or 4 times, revisit things he has ruled on (how many times did he explain he has no jurisdiction over the jail, etc?).

 

[mikeysmommom]

OH but wait - this woman was juror #1319 The one before her was #1055 and was a white female (put through) the one before her was #1019 and he was an AA male and he was put through as well. So, there have been other AA that have been put through so I still don't get why the race card with this one.

IMO DT knows ICA sunk herself from day 1,there is no AHA moment that will free ICA nor a point where we all will understand why ICA lied and did nothing to help Police find Caylee.I am very disappointed in JBP today IMO SA did not want her off because she is AA but because of her answers,DT threw out the race card and JBP IMO because he is AA got offended and agreed.Batson was about AA defendant having an all Caucasian jury,How does this apply to ICA case?

 

[JSR]

And after all of the indulgence in JB and CM's utterly offensive, scheming NONSENSE for months on end, he really shut JA up pretty quick.Yes, HHJP has kept things on track and tends to rule with the SA (because they are right) he indulges the DT with hearing them rehash arguments 3 or 4 times, revisit things he has ruled on (how many times did he explain he has no jurisdiction over the jail, etc?).

Correct. HHJP would absolutely not entertain any oral discussion. It was over and decided in a nano second.

 

[gitana1]

Is it possible that the DT was just waiting for the SA to try to strike an ethnic POT juror in order to claim that it was based on race? Perhaps that is why JB has been complaining from the first that there weren't enough minorities on offer. You can't claim that the SA is trying to dismiss for race if race of that pot juror is not seen as an issue. There would be more chances to try this manouver if there were more minority pot jurors. :waitasec:Just asking...

I guess but I don't know what the point would be. I really think this had little to do with race from the defense's point of view but everything to do with the lady herself who as i said, I would love a big hug from but would not want to see her making any major decisions for anyone, ever.

Well, at least we know who threw the race card into the mix which was actually quite ridiculous considering that juror #1019 just so happens to be of African-American heritage as well. All this amounts to is that Mason wanted a chance to showboat.

I actually think it was more about getting a juror who they know could be a devastating wild card for the state.

OH but wait - this woman was juror #1319 The one before her was #1055 and was a white female (put through) the one before her was #1019 and he was an AA male and he was put through as well. So, there have been other AA that have been put through so I still don't get why the race card with this one.

I know. That was bogus. Clearly this had nothing to do with her being black. But I think JA's complete failure to question this juror in depth is what tipped the balance for HHJP. He really should have questioned her as in depth as he did the other jurors and we likely would not have this problem.

 

[BeanE]

A few people have said they didn't see where HHJP said something about race.

RAW VIDEO: Day 5 Of Casey Anthony Jury Selection Pt.13
http://www.wftv.com/video/27889247/index.html

11:03 Cheney Mason says "Batson inquiry" and then he says "We want a race neutral reason. Let the record reflect that the juror is a black female."

Jeff Ashton says "First answer out of her mouth." He goes on to explain that it was "her opinions about judging others". That she doesn't like "judging other people on what someone says".

Then Ashton complains, and the judge explains further, and cites a Florida supreme court decision, and then goes into even more detail. This is all about comparisons of this juror to other jurors.

HHJP then says pursuant to Melbourne (the supreme court decision), and considering that 4 hours were spent on the first juror, and only a short while with this juror, "the court doesn't find that to be a race neutral reason".

To me, listening to all his explanations, and his comparisons of this juror to others under the same circumstances, and going back and reviewing those jurors, I see what he means. If the 3 reasons given by Ashton were valid for his strike on this juror, then there are definitely other jurors he should also have objected to and struck. It does leave a question as to why he struck this one and not the others with the same circumstances.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I'm sorry I'm confused .... Casey is white,why do I continue to hear the race card being brought into to this trial..The defense keeps speaking of race and havings hispanics on the jury and Casey is white.. Why is Race being brought into this case.. I can see having a diverse jury but what the hay..:maddening:

Maybe Casey's great, great, great, great, great grandmother was black and this will be our "aha" moment? Or maybe, just maybe, since Casey has had Hispanic in her, JB feels that makes her eligible for a Hispanic jury?

I find it really insulting that JB is implying that African American or Hispanic people would be more willing to relate to Casey? That they would somehow be able to understand her behavior and why she did the things she did? I think it is going to backfire on them severely.

I am trying to think about the positives this woman could bring to the jury. She is definitely older. I wonder just how old she is? Is she native to Florida or even the South? We have to remember that Casey said that Zenaida was half black. If this woman is old enough to have gone through the Civil Rights Movement, Brown vs. Board of Education, etc... she may be very good for this jury. If she hears that this little spoiled white girl in the suburbs accused a half black woman of kidnapping Caylee and then Caylee ended up dead, it may trigger memories of how she felt as a child and young woman growing up in such hard times... when racism was at it's peak.

If she is native to Florida, I am sure her own parents told her the stories of Rosewood, Florida (1923) and Fort Myers, Florida (1924). I'm from Fort Myers, Florida and I am very ashamed to know that the place I call home has a nasty history when it comes to false accusations against African American's that ended up with unjustified killings (two 10-year-old boys were lynched here in 1924 based on false accusations). If this potential juror is native of Florida, she most likely grew up on these horrific stories.

It really sucks that this has come to this, but the defense made this a race issue... which I still don't understand why?? I can just hope that if this woman makes it to the jury she can make the right decision. Casey needs to be punished... she doesn't have to sentence her to death... but she needs to be punished!

 

[gitana1]

That is absurd though. She is obviously low iq and does not understand very simple questions and concepts. Race has nothing to do with that. It is NOT racist to challenge her, and my estimation of HHJP has considerably diminished.

This was Ashton's fault. He failed to ask hardly any questions of her and immediately used a peremptory rather than even trying to have her excused for cause first. I don't blame the judge. He needs to make sure there are no issues for appeal. He asked JA for his reasoning and it was weak, IMO. He did not give solid, well though out reasons. And once the judge issues a ruling, there is no further discussion allowed.

HHJP kind of, almost, had no choice but JA caused that. Had he brought up that he did not use strikes on other black potential jurors, maybe he would have gotten somewhere but he really needed to examine her in greater depth so he could have a basis for asking that she be excused for cause first.

And then, he could have used his peremptory and could have shown more easily that he was not using it based on race had JB made such an objection.

But the fact that JA seemed to shoot from the hip with no planning and used his peremptory in a much too cocky manner really forced the court's hand, IMO.

JA has tons of experience so I don't know what the heck happened here. I have noticed that he can get riled up at times and allows himself to be baited by JB so maybe that's the problem.

This case means a lot to the state and they really want justice for Caylee. JB's arrogant, sneering, blundering, smug and smarmy attitude has fired them up even further and made them all the more committed. But maybe it's also caused JA to lose his cool a bit. He needs to get it under control. I'm sure he's sick with mortification tonight. It was a bad mistake, IMO.

 

[tlcya]

Yes, the judge is not supposed to be able to over-rule a peremptory challenge, unless that challenge is based upon race, sex etc. So by the simple fact that HHJP over-ruled this peremptory challenge, it can be reasonably extrapolated that his view is that state's challenge WAS based on race, sex, etc (race, in this case).

Adrienne -- the "based upon that" reason you gave is not a legal reason a judge can over-rule a peremptory challenge.

It's true the judge was saying that other pot. jurors were not challenged even though they had similar answers when they didn't understand the questions.... BUT, HHJP is basically stating (by this ruling) that the REASON these previous pot. jurors were not challenged and this woman was, is because SHE is an African American.


Edit: Adrienne -- what you said above about juror #1019 makes this ruling even more bizarre, IMO. It just makes no sense at all, to me.

:goodpost:

Very well put!

 

[BeanE]

I completely disagree with these remarks in several posts that the juror is stupid, unable to understand simple questions, etc, etc, etc. I don't know where that's coming from. In her entire testimony, she only once said she didn't understand. Once.

I saw no evidence of stupidity or inability to understand basic concepts whatsoever.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't think the state was thinking about race at all, but they weren't thinking very hard about what they were saying either. They messed up and this happened. Don't worry, no doubt JB will mess up plenty. The judge did what he felt was right.

 

[cluciano63]

I completely disagree with these remarks in several posts that the juror is stupid, unable to understand simple questions, etc, etc, etc. I don't know where that's coming from. In her entire testimony, she only once said she didn't understand. Once.

I saw no evidence of stupidity or inability to understand basic concepts whatsoever.

Thank you. I am not getting how people are saying she is not intelligent either. Some of the questions were phrased in a way to make a person's head spin and she may have wanted one or two repeated, but that is all I heard, other than some hesitation in her feelings, not in her ability to process.

 

[gitana1]

thank you - and it was CM that brought up the race card? I wasn't paying attention when that happened. Did JA give a reason he wanted her out? I'm sure he didn't say "because she is AA".

It all happened stunningly fast to me and I thought it was JB that made the objection, based on Batson, which means he didn;t have to come out and say she is black.

 

[cluciano63]

It all happened stunningly fast to me and I thought it was JB that made the objection, based on Batson, which means he didn;t have to come out and say she is black.

And the judge agreed pretty quickly too. I think the state was stunned...not even sure race occurred to them.

 

[BeanE]

No one (that I've seen) has said Ashton is racist. What Mason asked for was a race neutral reason for his strike, and what the judge found is that his reason was not race neutral.

The issue was not even brought up whether Ashton was racist. The issue was whether his reason was race neutral.

I disagree there's any issue with this woman's intellect. Ashton made it clear what his 3 concerns were, and they had nothing to do with the woman's intellect.

 

[mikeysmommom]

This juror worries me because she worries the wonderful Lawyers we are very lucky to have as fellow members.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I completely disagree with these remarks in several posts that the juror is stupid, unable to understand simple questions, etc, etc, etc. I don't know where that's coming from. In her entire testimony, she only once said she didn't understand. Once.

I saw no evidence of stupidity or inability to understand basic concepts whatsoever.

It's not about the number of times she said she didn't understand, it's a matter of weighing the entirety of her answers. She is clearly not a critical thinker and would not be good when following the evidence in this trial.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

This was Ashton's fault. He failed to ask hardly any questions of her and immediately used a peremptory rather than even trying to have her excused for cause first. I don't blame the judge. He needs to make sure there are no issues for appeal. He asked JA for his reasoning and it was weak, IMO. He did not give solid, well though out reasons. And once the judge issues a ruling, there is no further discussion allowed.

HHJP kind of, almost, had no choice but JA caused that. Had he brought up that he did not use strikes on other black potential jurors, maybe he would have gotten somewhere but he really needed to examine her in greater depth so he could have a basis for asking that she be excused for cause first.

And then, he could have used his peremptory and could have shown more easily that he was not using it based on race had JB made such an objection.

But the fact that JA seemed to shoot from the hip with no planning and used his peremptory in a much too cocky manner really forced the court's hand, IMO.

JA has tons of experience so I don't know what the heck happened here. I have noticed that he can get riled up at times and allows himself to be baited by JB so maybe that's the problem.

This case means a lot to the state and they really want justice for Caylee. JB's arrogant, sneering, blundering, smug and smarmy attitude has fired them up even further and made them all the more committed. But maybe it's also caused JA to lose his cool a bit. He needs to get it under control. I'm sure he's sick with mortification tonight. It was a bad mistake, IMO.

I think I get it now - or at least a little clearer. First, HHJP rehabilitated this juror from her original stance of "judging people". Then it was JA's turn and he didn't go in depth enough to show that either 1)she was rehabilitated or 2) she wasn't and still was relying on her "judging people". Then JB was up and she kinda "waffled" a little bit with him. Then it was time to move on and JA jumps up and all hello broke loose.

Am I close?

 

[BeanE]

And the judge agreed pretty quickly too. I think the state was stunned...not even sure race occurred to them.

I really think what happened is that it's the end of the week, after a series of very long days, and the prosecution was just plain tired, and didn't think it through enough.

The only concern I share with the prosecution is what the juror said about not wanting to take people's word. Some of the evidence presented will be just that - people's word about what they saw, heard, experienced, their opinions based on those things, etc. That may have been better to hone in on and emphasize.