SA peremptory challenge denied

[tragco]

We all think this is pretty important. Have I missed all the headline press coverage about it?

The talking heads will not want to get anywhere near this. Race is an extremely sensitive subject and any perception of bias, even if none exists, can have huge repercussions on a person or a company. Litigation is everywhere. Their opinions could be misconstrued just as easily as that strike request was.

What do you say? "I think that this was a huge blow for the prosecution." Natural question follows: "Why?". At this point you'd have to state some opinion that would show the juror in a negative light. The Cheney Masons of the world would descend upon you and claim you were not neutral with regard to race.

Mainstream Media IMO will at best do a careful tightrope walk because they have viewers and jobs they want to keep.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

The talking heads will not want to get anywhere near this. Race is an extremely sensitive subject and any perception of bias, even if none exists, can have huge repercussions on a person or a company. Litigation is everywhere. Their opinions could be misconstrued just as easily as that strike request was.

What do you say? "I think that this was a huge blow for the prosecution." Natural question follows: "Why?". At this point you'd have to state some opinion that would show the juror in a negative light. The Cheney Masons of the world would descend upon you and claim you were not neutral with regard to race.

Mainstream Media IMO will at best do a careful tightrope walk because they have viewers and jobs they want to keep.

Exactly. A sad commentary on an even sadder state of affairs.

 

[JWG]

Good post.



It was the cadence, the rhythm, the way she responded. I see it not as "stupid" but more limited in her intellectual capacities, her critical thinking skills. She did not seem bright at all, poor thing, but I think age and lack of life experience may have added to that. She seemed to have a very small world, few interests, few activities that would challenge the mind. What can i say? Listening to her and based on my experience I thought, "Oh boy. This would be a nightmare." She sounded more like a child trying hard to please and changing her answers to make everyone happy.



Exactly. i cannot see her beginning to comprehend half of what will be presented and i can see her easily swayed by impressions based not on logic but on who seems nice, etc.

I will say this again and hopefully no more but people have a very hard time believing a mother could hurt her child. Especially a nice, young mom who is in happy photos with her baby. The defense will show those and will show the video of her with Caylee. This will further sway people who have a hard time believing a cute, young gal could hurt her child.

Right here we had quite a few people who believed steadfastly in casey's innocence. Intelligent people who knew all the facts including those jurors are unlikely to ever hear. We still have many people who believe it had to have been an accident. Now think about this lady. She's the type, IMO, who would get scammed because the salesman was so nice or give all her money to the televangelist because he said those who give money to Jesus will never have to worry about poverty.

I also think she is very indecisive. She earlier said she didn't think she could serve because she doesn't like to judge people, saying something about church, IIRC (misunderstanding Christianity as precluding courts of law and juries). She changed her mind during questioning and waffled on the death penalty, both of which pose problems for the state.

Listen, I can't say that she is 100% going to screw this case up but I can say that I believe she is a huge risk to a finding of guilt. There was a reason the state was so perturbed by her that they panicked and used a peremptory when they should not have and there was a reason the defense wanted her so badly that they challenged the peremptory based on Batson. And it had nothing to do with her race, IMO. Believe them, not me.

BBM ... I did not listen to her being questioned, but the distinct impression I get from reading the descriptions in this thread is that she could easily be arm-twisted in deliberations as well. Food for thought.

 

[gamom]

The reason the defense wants black jurors is because they are RACIST (the irony is rich) and think all black people are the same, i.e., that they favor defendants.

Well, please let me on the jury so I can prove to them how wrong that stero type is. I can even persuade this wild card juror. All I need is one hour..give me 6-8 weeks and JB and the DT would be very sorry they sterotyped AA. Just sayin...

I might not always trust and believe EVERYTHING LE says, but I do believe my own ears. Once the lies KC said on the tape come out..there will be no turning back. The stain in the trunk, etc. She will be found guilty. Even the simpliest of simpliest minds will understand she lied (alot) and put the baby in the trunk then threw Caylee away. This lady sounds like my grandma. I can just hear her saying, "Lord, I can't judge people. I think this lady killed her baby. Please give me the strength to vote guilty" Then after she stands up to say "GUILTY" I can just hear her adding a "Bless her heart" at the end of it. moo

When it comes to the DP, I think this is where the DT may win. Many will feel that life is good enough and is more of a punishment than DP. Others will feel differently. The good thing about that is, the vote does not have to be unanimous. I think so far of the ones that have gotten through the DP has not been an issue. :twocents:

 

[little lulu]

But how will the judge know that the juror is having trouble following the case unless the juror offers up that information? I haven't watched this morning so I can't form an opinion on this lady myself but a big part of the issue with her seems to be the perception of her "limited intelligence". In my experience stupid people are rarely the ones to call themselves out and offer up that they don't understand what is going on. So how would the judge know to replace her based on this? Would the other jurors have to complain?

Because, I have served on a jury where a juror was having problems understanding, and the judge caught it, dismissed her and called an alternate.
I'm not wanting to cause diversion here, just offered my opinion. I also know it takes only ONE person to rock the boat on a jury cause in one of the trials I served on we had a hung jury because of a person that kept offering doubt...while the rest of us took the information and voted guilty.

 

[ZsaZsa]

AS usual, an excellent analysis of yesterday's decision, by Valhall.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/05/14/caylee-anthony-case-jury-selection-continues-051411/

 

[JSR]

Because, I have served on a jury where a juror was having problems understanding, and the judge caught it, dismissed her and called an alternate.
I'm not wanting to cause diversion here, just offered my opinion. I also know it takes only ONE person to rock the boat on a jury cause in one of the trials I served on we had a hung jury because of a person that kept offering doubt...while the rest of us took the information and voted guilty.

And that's what I see could happen here. Although I don't know much of HHJPs history I'm not sure that HHJP would remove this juror if he saw problems since he was so headstrong in making sure she stayed. I don't know if his ego might get in the way of removing her. Not that I think that he won't I"m just don't know his previous history in similar situations.

 

[gitana1]

I'm not sure about that at all. They were made to think that though.

Oh, I'm sure that community would know whether they had suffered genuine historical injustices. They were not children who could be made to believe they had suffered what they hadn't. It's condescending to suppose otherwise, IMO.

I lived here then. It was well known that blacks suffered greatly at the hands of the police. It was in the news regularly and reflected all throughout popular culture. That was a jury pool who indeed could imagine the police trumping up a charge against a black man. Because it happened to them all the time. It didn't help that Officer Mark Fuhrman, an officer who found blood evidence, had used excessive force on black suspects, almost killing one, was taped saying the "N" word 41 times after denying using the word and was later found to have participated in blackface skits.

The suffering of the black community at the hands of the police in LA was first really analyzed with the 1965 Watts riots and eventually, culminated in the 1992 riots and the Christopher commission which found a department rife with excessive force.

This is a people who have clearly suffered collectively, not only in Los Angeles but all throughout the country, since emancipation. To believe that the attitudes that held that blacks were savage animals who needed to be controlled suddenly disappeared through emancipation or even civil rights, is naive. :twocents:

However, I don't see what this has to do with this juror or this case, really. Racism is not an issue here, casey is not black and this is not OJ, thank God. I think the reason the state does not want this juror and the defense does has nothing to do with race. But I may be reading this post out of context because I turned on the computer and it's the first one I saw.

 

[Just Jayla]

Do potential jurors in Florida have to be registered voters? How does this lady vote if she cannot judge anyone?

 

[gitana1]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27889247/index.html

If we are talking about the above juror I don't see a problem with her. She seems like she doesn't want to judge someone on gossip which is not what will be presented in court. Also she seems to me to just want to be a conscientious juror, to weigh both sides and go with what her gut tells her is the right decision. I think she will be fine. Our system needs people who are open minded b/c abuses of power do happen (not in this case, but they happen). I'm ok with her.

:cow:

The defense is okay with her too. In fact, they loved her. Didn't ask her hardly anything. The state, on the other hand, were perturbed enough to use a strike on her. Really, that should tell you something. The state are not idiots. This prosecution team has done 30 murder trials, IIRC. They know what they are doing.

 

[gitana1]

AS usual, an excellent analysis of yesterday's decision, by Valhall.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/05/14/caylee-anthony-case-jury-selection-continues-051411/

Succinct and worth the read. Thanks ZsaZsa.

 

[Sparky]

Do potential jurors in Florida have to be registered voters? How does this lady vote if she cannot judge anyone?

No, it's done from our DL.


How was my name selected?
Your name was selected from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles file. This file includes all licensed drivers and persons who possess a Florida Identification Card who are eighteen years old and older and reside in Pinellas County. This list is updated each quarter and is sent to the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
You are eligible for jury selection once every year.

http://www.pinellasclerk.org/aspinclude2/ASPInclude.asp?pagename=juryduty.htm

 

[LinasK]

OJ's jurors, whose decision was bitterly disappointing to me, were drawn from a community that had suffered genuine historical injustices at the hands of LAPD, and the defense were able to draw upon those to persuade them the cops had planted evidence to frame him. I can't resent that jury for how they reached their verdict; there was a lot of sad, terrible baggage in that courtroom, and a clever defense team who knew how to work it.

I can, because in addition to that they were star-struck by this multi-billionaire sports hero in his designer Italian suits. I saw shots of the jurors afterwards, they were clearly in awe of him!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[costalpilot]

My opinion is that this woman should NOT have been selected to sit on this jury, and none of my reasons include race. She had so much trouble answering the most basic of questions. She isn't going to keep up with the trial. And she's going to vote not guilty simply because she isn't comfortable judging others. And at first she indicated she didn't agree with the DP. There were many reasons why she shouldn't have made it this round. I have for the most part agreed with HHJP but I think he made and error. I understand why he did, because CM played the race card and won.

If this is a hung jury this woman will be the reason for it. But have no fear, I know the state will retry the case. Casey WILL be convicted one day. Now I'm no longer as confident as I was before this process came along that this will be trial that convicts her. I assumed that people like this woman would be rightfully dismissed for proper challenges.

i agree absolutely. I would hope HHJP did what he did not because of the race card, and maybe he did. Noone really knows. But if he did, it was a big mistake, imo.

However, I was a juror once in Memphis, Tn. and there was a woman juror who sounded and acted a lot like this woman, except that she was VERY stubborn and not willing to engage in discussion about her beliefs about the case. Everyone had agreed, but her. And we just continued to go over the facts as we knew them, until, suddenly and very quietly, she changed her position to the majority.

This, of course, means little to this case, but as bad as I wanted this pj off the case, I'm actually a little hopeful she will do fine. I mean, who would have thought the original Spector foreman was gonna be a "problem" but, alas, he was.

You can never tell, and even though I think HHJP overstepped his charge, it might work out just fine.

when sunny hostins keeps repeating " They only need one juror", just remember, its not true. Phil Spector.

 

[affinity]

i agree absolutely. I would hope HHJP did what he did not because of the race card, and maybe he did. Noone really knows. But if he did, it was a big mistake, imo.

However, I was a juror once in Memphis, Tn. and there was a woman juror who sounded and acted a lot like this woman, except that she was VERY stubborn and not willing to engage in discussion about her beliefs about the case. Everyone had agreed, but her. And we just continued to go over the facts as we knew them, until, suddenly and very quietly, she changed her position to the majority.

This, of course, means little to this case, but as bad as I wanted this pj off the case, I'm actually a little hopeful she will do fine. I mean, who would have thought the original Spector foreman was gonna be a "problem" but, alas, he was.

You can never tell, and even though I think HHJP overstepped his charge, it might work out just fine.

when sunny hostins keeps repeating " They only need one juror", just remember, its not true. Phil Spector.

I have a similar story, I was on a murder trial...we had a bad juror who was sort of "dumb". Everything had to be explained to her and she was a real red herring, coming up with all sorts of theories that were nuts. It was horrendous, but she finally (kind of suddenly) agreed with us. I think she finally wanted to go home. It all worked out fine in the end.

 

[costalpilot]

I agree.
I just asked AZ Lawyer- what happens if she is as slow-witted as she appeared to be yesterday, and cannot comprehend all of the evidence? What if she continues with her 'don't ask me to judge others' when they are deciding the verdict?

its my experience, in a jury, that someone a lot like her, eventually goes with the group.

I really doubt she has the strength to hold out.

but maybe i'm wrong. hope not.

but always remember, they will retry ica in a heartbeat. just imagine. another couple of years of this.

boggles the mind, eh?

 

[LinasK]

i agree absolutely. I would hope HHJP did what he did not because of the race card, and maybe he did. Noone really knows. But if he did, it was a big mistake, imo.

However, I was a juror once in Memphis, Tn. and there was a woman juror who sounded and acted a lot like this woman, except that she was VERY stubborn and not willing to engage in discussion about her beliefs about the case. Everyone had agreed, but her. And we just continued to go over the facts as we knew them, until, suddenly and very quietly, she changed her position to the majority.

This, of course, means little to this case, but as bad as I wanted this pj off the case, I'm actually a little hopeful she will do fine. I mean, who would have thought the original Spector foreman was gonna be a "problem" but, alas, he was.

You can never tell, and even though I think HHJP overstepped his charge, it might work out just fine.

when sunny hostins keeps repeating " They only need one juror", just remember, its not true. Phil Spector.

I have a similar story, I was on a murder trial...we had a bad juror who was sort of "dumb". Everything had to be explained to her and she was a real red herring, coming up with all sorts of theories that were nuts. It was horrendous, but she finally (kind of suddenly) agreed with us. I think she finally wanted to go home. It all worked out fine in the end.

its my experience, in a jury, that someone a lot like her, eventually goes with the group.

I really doubt she has the strength to hold out.

but maybe i'm wrong. hope not.

but always remember, they will retry ica in a heartbeat. just imagine. another couple of years of this.

boggles the mind, eh?

Thank-you guys, you're giving me hope. I was really depressed last night because of this juror. I had previously thought the trial was a slam dunk, but my perceptions of her are the same as gitana's. I have seen women act just like gitana described and that's what's been worrying me...

 

[Mystic]

I have a similar story, I was on a murder trial...we had a bad juror who was sort of "dumb". Everything had to be explained to her and she was a real red herring, coming up with all sorts of theories that were nuts. It was horrendous, but she finally (kind of suddenly) agreed with us. I think she finally wanted to go home. It all worked out fine in the end.

thx's, I think it will work out too..

After listening to this juror; especially with her reply when questioned about a layperson vs an Officer I thought she actually did clarify the previous comment about judgement. If I'm right she isn't one to make a generalized judgment over a group or individual. I think she may be slow in her reply but that response had me thinking the DT really goofed with not questioning her some more. Who knows what is in her background? ICA had 'it made' in most viewpoints. Its really going to be difficult to empathize with anything that could have occurred in relation to murdering your own child. Especially that she has shown no loss or remorse. Simple people tend to go with what is easy to understand.

My feeling is she may just surprise all of us. Forensics can be explained. I have confidence in how the SA relays information...(not so much the DT). I think the SA will have her after opening statements.

 

[gamom]

I just had my hubby listen to her video clip since he is less jaded by this case. His opionoin was that she is not really dangerous to the state. He thinks she did not sound like she understood half of the questions and thinks that she will have a hard time following the science part of the trial. But he felt in the end her fellow jurors will translate the info to her. He felt that she is actually dangerous to the defense since she will go along with the crowd. He did not think the state would get a DP vote from her, but thought they WOULD get a guilty vote.

I encourage those who have been worried about this juror to listen to her again. After the emotion has subsided, I found that listening again, she does seem sure that she can judge "based on the evidence"

Moo

 

[whiteangora]

I just had my hubby listen to her video clip since he is less jaded by this case. His opionoin was that she is not really dangerous to the state. He thinks she did not sound like she understood half of the questions and thinks that she will have a hard time following the science part of the trial. But he felt in the end her fellow jurors will translate the info to her. He felt that she is actually dangerous to the defense since she will go along with the crowd. He did not think the state would get a DP vote from her, but thought they WOULD get a guilty vote.

I encourage those who have been worried about this juror to listen to her again. After the emotion has subsided, I found that listening again, she does seem sure that she can judge "based on the evidence"

Moo

I did the same thing with my hubby and he seems to agree with what your better half said. He felt she was just a sweet lady but not a very powerful or persuasive type and she will not upset the apple cart.
Time will tell.