SA peremptory challenge denied

[suzihawk]

What happened the way I see it is that Mr. Aston knew pretty early on he was going to use his strike based on this woman coming out right away in the first segment by saying she cannot judge others. So he didn't waste the court's time by pushing the questioning.

The judge was in a tight spot because he had to rule on a racial issue which could have thrown the case based on Mr. Baez's complaint since the early hours of jury selection, about the lack of minorities in the jury pool.

While I think Mr. Aston had a reason to use this strike I also am not the least bit surprised that Mr. Baez pulled the race card.

I would guess you will see this lady assigned to an alternate seat. Judge Perry just threw some cold water on a hot fire MOO.

Ah HA!!!!!!!!!!! Good thinking!!!!!!!!! I hope you are right. I just have an uneasy feeling that it's like they are trying to talk the juror's INTO this, KWIM?

I agree with grandmaj's assessment of the situation. I wish JA had taken more time to question this lady. This coupled with CM's objection based on racial bias sort of forced JP's hand. Because of the laws in place, he can not even have the slightest appearance of a racial bias.

As to the bolded part above... I sensed a bit of desperation to get this jury seated as well. Right after this all went down we come upon the PJ where they had to have a sidebar about him accessing his FB account and they seemed to have tippy toed all around that and gave him a pretty wide berth when, clearly they had already been told not to access any social media what-so-ever.

 

[tehcloser]

they didn't try to strike her

they tried to use preemptive...whatever the heck it is... cause (without even interviewing her enough)

moo

I thought it was a preemptive strike/challange thingy. That's lawyer speak, lmbo.

 

[Leila]

I think there is a real good possibility of a hung jury now.

I don't know if the fault is HHJP's though. The SA should have questioned her more. They should have tried to challenge for cause first. They should have waited until later before trying to do a peremptory strike. I admire Ashton greatly and am sure he never thought in his wildest nightmares that this would happen, but he really dropped the ball on this one. IMO.

I think it would have made a difference if JA had waited until the third round and delved more into her initial statements regarding "not wanting to sit in judgement of someone." IIRC, during round 1, she stated that her religion wouldn't allow her to judge another person. JA could also try to nail down her position on the death penalty. At first she stated something about being opposed to it, and then later seemed to indicate she could impose the death penalty. She was vague on a number of questions put to her and I think she may not have understood those questions.

 

[gitana1]

I am not sure the juror can be selected as an alternate but maybe? I've heard two different things.

1) The jury panel is picked and the alternates are randomly chosen. (this would allow for the possibility)

2) The alternates are the ones selected after the first 12 are seated (if this is right, the juror is not going to be an alternate)

Anyone know which scenario we are looking at? Either of these or another one?

It's my understanding, that the alternates are randomly selected and that no one on the jury is aware if they are an alternate or if they are the actual seated juror. My hope and prayer is that this lady is an alternate.

In all the cases I have seen, the jury is selected and once they are all seated, then alternates are picked. But that's California.

So, if the SA wants to challenge an AA PJ for any reason.....that is considered racist? How pathetic.

JA did nothing wrong. HHJP did.

Not really. It's not that they are accusing him of being racist. For example, if I have a black client on trial for a crime he did not commit, I would not want Asian,s in general, on the jury because they are known (generalization), to be very law and order, many are suspicious of blacks and they can tend to trust LE implicitly, so if a person is arrested, it's because they are guilty.

Of course, every person is different but these are generalizations that lawyers begin with, in the real world, whether they are considered pc or not. They are also generalizations that are illegal if it can be proved that a strike is based on them.

gitana1 the way I understand the alternate method that hhjp is using to seat the jury they will be allowed to backstrike after the 12 are seated and replace them one by one.

inal but that is how I understood this alternate method he is using

I don't know what a back strike is but I think once a a peremptory has been used on a person, it cannot be done again. I will try to ask my law partner. All he does is crim law.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

From the link I posted earlier:

The trial lawyer has the right to back-strike at any time. A party may use an unused peremptory challenge at any time up until the jury is sworn. Lottimer v. North Broward Hospital District, 889 So. 2d 165 (Fla 4th DCA 2004) Counsel has the right to back-strike into main panel even if the main panel has been accepted, the parties are selecting alternates, and even after strikes against alternate jurors have been exercised and the alternates have been selected. Lottimer, supra. The Court, no matter how well-intentioned, can’t impose artificial procedures to prevent a party from backstriking at any time. See, e.g., Van Sickle v. Zimmer, 807 So. 2d 182 (Fla 2nd DCA 2002). (Error for court to implement procedure whereby the court would allow an opportunity to backstrike once six jurors were accepted, but if six jurors were accepted and the parties had no backstrikes, those six would serve as jurors, no further backstrikes would be allowed, and then an alternate would be chosed.)

http://www.juryblog.com/the-trial-lawyers-rights/right-to-back-strike/

Is this what happened?

 

[gibby207]

Judge Perry has been very careful with the race issue. When Baez and Mason complained right in the beginning, he made sure it was on the record that jurors are chosen from their driver's license at random.

Now I predict they are going to get to the 11th hour and the DT are going to file a motion to throw the entire panel.

Judge Perry knows what the evidence is in this case. He knows the State has a strong case. He is doing everything in his power to eliminate a mistrial. He was in a corner and he had to balance the entirety of the case. The State has the ability to take the life, freedom and liberty of Casey. They have recommended the death penalty.

I think his ruling while I don't agree with it on many levels, was the only one he could make with a race challenge against the State.

This lady may surprise everyone. She may be the meat and taters that sees right through the garbage. She has lived a long life, don't mess with the grannys of the world.

Sooo... in this line of thinking, perhaps Judge wasn't angry at Ashton but really for having to sustain this strike in the first place. He didn't want to but did it to preserve the trial. Does that make sense?

I'm not legally inclined but I don't think she will be a problem whatsoever. I question the older white lady from a few days ago myself, the counselor. I worry about her the most.

 

[Future Juror]

I think it would have made a difference if JA had waited until the third round and delved more into her initial statements regarding "not wanting to sit in judgement of someone." IIRC, during round 1, she stated that her religion wouldn't allow her to judge another person. JA could also try to nail down her position on the death penalty. At first she stated something about being opposed to it, and then later seemed to indicate she could impose the death penalty. She was vague on a number of questions put to her and I think she may not have understood those questions.

I totally agree with you Leila. I really don't think she understood the questions posed to her. at. all.

As for the BBM, do you know what the third round consists of? I've seen a few people ask today, but I haven't seen the answer. TIA!

 

[gamom]

She indicated she didn't consider anyone her "friend" just acquaintances. She doesn't consider anyone her friend. Which is another line of questioning I found troublesome.

If she has no friends, I would take that mean she has "judged" the people she knows and considered them to not be friend worthy:floorlaugh:

I am still wondering why neither side questioned her background more to find out if she had family? spouse? kids? Seems like the SA dropped the ball on this one.

 

[technicalconfusion]

Ok, listening right now. If she has no friends why does she have a FB account? Just curious?

I have a FB account. I have exactly one friend.

I don't have any friends either folks, except for this one friend who, is a friend but she's a customer of mine as well. But while we email back and forth (she practically lives next door, lol) I rarely see her.

Having few (or no) friends doesn't make us bad people.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I think this was a 'strike for cause' issue and not a 'peremptory strike issue.'

jmo

 

[gitana1]

From the link I posted earlier:

The trial lawyer has the right to back-strike at any time. A party may use an unused peremptory challenge at any time up until the jury is sworn. Lottimer v. North Broward Hospital District, 889 So. 2d 165 (Fla 4th DCA 2004) Counsel has the right to back-strike into main panel even if the main panel has been accepted, the parties are selecting alternates, and even after strikes against alternate jurors have been exercised and the alternates have been selected. Lottimer, supra. The Court, no matter how well-intentioned, can’t impose artificial procedures to prevent a party from backstriking at any time. See, e.g., Van Sickle v. Zimmer, 807 So. 2d 182 (Fla 2nd DCA 2002). (Error for court to implement procedure whereby the court would allow an opportunity to backstrike once six jurors were accepted, but if six jurors were accepted and the parties had no backstrikes, those six would serve as jurors, no further backstrikes would be allowed, and then an alternate would be chosed.)

http://www.juryblog.com/the-trial-lawyers-rights/right-to-back-strike/

Is this what happened?

He used his peremptory on this lady. He is done. She's seated. I talked to my law partner about it. He affirmed this.

IMO, he should have tried to have her excused for cause. Then, the next round will be trying to seat a jury from all the people who have not been excused for cause. At that time, they will go through each person as they
come up and if there are no peremptories, they will be seated, one by one, and then the alternates.

What you are talking about appears to be using a peremptory after the jury and alternates have been chosen, which means they would have to then chose additional jurors from whoever is left.

But, there can be no "back strikes" if all ten peremptories have already been used. And, the problem here is that a lawyer cannot use a peremptory on a juror when they already have tried. This lady, therefore, is the very first known juror to be seated on the Anthony case and to my knowledge, she is unlikely to be an alternate because I think they go in order. I hope I'm wrong on that.

 

[gitana1]

I think this was a 'strike for cause' issue and not a 'peremptory strike issue.'

jmo

Why do you think that? I would so hope you are right but I don't think so. It all went so fast but when JB accused JA of using a strike based on race, that's what indicated this was a peremptory to me.

 

[gitana1]

I have a FB account. I have exactly one friend.

I don't have any friends either folks, except for this one friend who, is a friend but she's a customer of mine as well. But while we email back and forth (she practically lives next door, lol) I rarely see her.

Having few (or no) friends doesn't make us bad people.

That's true. There are many reasons why someone may not have friends. They may socialize mostly with family, or be unable to leave the house a lot or be shy or whatever.

But hey, you do have friends right here on websleuths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tehcloser]

He used his peremptory on this lady. He is done. She's seated. I talked to my law partner about it. He affirmed this.

IMO, he should have tried to have her excused for cause. Then, the next round will be trying to seat a jury from all the people who have not been excused for cause. At that time, they will go through each person as they
come up and if there are no peremptories, they will be seated, one by one, and then the alternates.

What you are talking about appears to be using a peremptory after the jury and alternates have been chosen, which means they would have to then chose additional jurors from whoever is left.

But, there can be no "back strikes" if all ten peremptories have already been used. And, the problem here is that a lawyer cannot use a peremptory on a juror when they already have tried. This lady, therefore, is the very first known juror to be seated on the Anthony case and to my knowledge, she is unlikely to be an alternate because I think they go in order. I hope I'm wrong on that.

Thanks Git!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JSR]

In all the cases I have seen, the jury is selected and once they are all seated, then alternates are picked. But that's California.

BBM and snipped by me.

I know that's how they do it out here, but I thought I read somewhere that the alternates are randomly selected in FL. I could totally be wrong on my recollection though.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Why do you think that? I would so hope you are right but I don't think so. It all went so fast but when JB accused JA of using a strike based on race, that's what indicated this was a peremptory to me.

I'm not so sure now, as this cites Procedure in Civil Cases. Is the Voir Dire process for a criminal case different in this way? I thought they had to have gone through this questioning phase with as many as necessary to seat the 12 + 8 then allow for the 20 strikes.

Two memorandums of law were added to the Jury Blog today concerning the timing of peremptory strikes during jury selection. The law is clear that “the only fair [jury selection] scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges … so that, before a party exercises a peremptory challenge, he has before him the full panel from which the challenge is to be made” — a panel that does not include “those excess persons over the number of needed jurors plus the number of allowable peremptories … after challenges for cause are made.” This procedure is discussed in more detail in the section of this Blog entitled – Procedure in Civil Cases.

http://www.juryblog.com/category/peremptory-challenges/

 

[JSR]

I agree with grandmaj's assessment of the situation. I wish JA had taken more time to question this lady. This coupled with CM's objection based on racial bias sort of forced JP's hand. Because of the laws in place, he can not even have the slightest appearance of a racial bias.

As to the bolded part above... I sensed a bit of desperation to get this jury seated as well. Right after this all went down we come upon the PJ where they had to have a sidebar about him accessing his FB account and they seemed to have tippy toed all around that and gave him a pretty wide berth when, clearly they had already been told not to access any social media what-so-ever.

I agree. I think HHJP is trying to get a jury seated in a week no matter the situation. He wants this thing to start on time on the 17th. And IMO I thought only a week for jury selection was really cutting it close. I thought it would need at least two weeks.

 

[gitana1]

I thought it was a preemptive strike/challange thingy. That's lawyer speak, lmbo.

Right.

Sooo... in this line of thinking, perhaps Judge wasn't angry at Ashton but really for having to sustain this strike in the first place. He didn't want to but did it to preserve the trial. Does that make sense?

I'm not legally inclined but I don't think she will be a problem whatsoever. I question the older white lady from a few days ago myself, the counselor. I worry about her the most.

Think about all the people on here who refused to believe that casey killed her baby because she looked happy in photos with Caylee. There was even an innocence thread. And these are smart people who had the evidence and all the facts that the jury may not get to see.

There are still people here who refuse to believe that it wasn't an accident. People are reluctant to find a mother guilty of premeditated murder. Now, take a juror with limited intellect and life experience who cannot understand half of what is happening and who the folksy, flirty defense appeals to more than the grim and determined prosecution and you may be able to see why I am concerned.

 

[tragco]

He used his peremptory on this lady. He is done. She's seated. I talked to my law partner about it. He affirmed this.

I am not an attorney like you or your partner, of course, but I believe you are correct. She is as firmly planted in the jury box as the twenty year old oak tree outside my window is planted in the ground.

There are no more strikes. I have researched for hours, can find no outs.

This is our first juror, folks.

(respectfully snipped)

 

[gitana1]

I am not an attorney like you or your partner, of course, but I believe you are correct. She is as firmly planted in the jury box as the twenty year old oak tree outside my window is planted in the ground.

There are no more strikes. I have researched for hours, can find no outs.

This is our first juror, folks.

(respectfully snipped)

Oh God. This has bummed me out all afternoon.