SA peremptory challenge denied

[gamom]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is why I think SA dropped the ball. They should have asked why she does not have any? They should have dug deeper into her. But in my mind THEY prejudged her and did not waste the time. Even if the DT has written somone off, they still go through the process to find out more about them. I think this is smart for 2 reasons. 1. It can confirm what you already know and alert the judge to it as well and 2. She might say OTHER things that will allow for dismissal due to cause.

On a positive note, if she is truly going to be a juror, hopefully she makes some friends during that 8 week period. Friends that can persuade her to judge the evidence correctly. :crazy:

 

[gitana1]

Off to hike with my dog and work out some frustration!

 

[gamom]

Also does anyone think she might have said she can't judge people in order to get out of jury duty? Especially since she appears to not really like to have to socialize with people?

 

[LambChop]

I think it was AF who first declined to ask this lady questions and JA answered with no further questions and I believe JA thought the defense did not want her because they felt she did not understand. It was NOT Judge Perry's fault because he did not stop the questions, the attorneys did. They never tried to clarify with her if she understood all of the questions because they were not asked. Maybe this woman's close friend just passed away and it is painful for her to talk about it, but no one will know because she was never asked about it. That is just an example. If she truly cannot understand as the trial progresses she will be excused and replaced with an alternate. That is why there are 8. It's a long trial.

And you know what I don't even understand Dr. Vass other than when he says he removed the top to the can and when the odor hit him he jumped back a foot. That made an impression and that stuck in my mind regardless of what went on after that much of which was Greek to me.

If she has trouble someone will know. You are a close knit group in the jury room. And while you can't talk about the trial you can talk about personal matters. She may end up with some close friends after the trial. jmo

 

[little lulu]

Oh this is sickening news. But, trying to console myself, this is why there are alternates, sometimes jurors that don't understand the rules or have trouble following along are dismissed..this will be a long trial, she may not last.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

wow... what a load of BS!

well, even if she doesn't want to vote "guilty"
hopefully the other 11 people are on the up and up and threaten to hog tie her or whatever if she doesn't vote guilty.

this is why i can never serve on a jury.. i'm a strongly opinionated person and will fight for what i believe in.

 

[justthinkin]

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 didn't get a chance to post earlier, but I just couldn't agree with you more. Your thought that this juror might be the one to cause this trial to result in a hung jury was the exact thought I had.
What she said her first day on the stand totally conflicted with what she said today.

I don't know how many times Judge Perry has stated he doesn't want to have to do this trial more than once, and then he goes ahead, and overrules the state, and insists on choosing as a juror the one person I've heard that could result in a hung jury.

Why, why, why? Talk about giving the defense one.
I'm simply speechless. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the race of one juror should overrule common sense, but apparently it did!

My only hope is that this woman becomes alternate #8, and really, she shouldn't even have that position.

Have not had a chance to read all the posts, so sorry if this thread is way beyond where my thoughts are right now.

 

[kwmred]

Hopefully, she will be a "follower" type when it comes time to deliberate.

 

[uklaw]

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/

Yeah I think Standard Practice is to seek challenge for cause and then use a Peremptory Strike if motion to strike for cause is denied. That would make sense (why use one of your limited PE when you might be able to get the juror removed for cause and not user one).

However, the SA clearly stated that the State were exercising a Peremptory Challenge. Immediately thereafter, CM asked for a "Batson Enquiry" (named after the US Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)) which is an enquiry asking for the prosecutor's reasons for using the PE to be put on record (AFAIK, the Prosecutor's reasons don't have to be "proper" ones thats could be used for a challenge for cause, but can't be based on race, gender, etc).

Theerefore, correct me if I am wrong but, as far as I can see the State tried (and failed) to use a peremptory challenge.

 

[uklaw]

wow... what a load of BS!

well, even if she doesn't want to vote "guilty"
hopefully the other 11 people are on the up and up and threaten to hog tie her or whatever if she doesn't vote guilty.

Sorry but don't think that's appropriate to say, even in jest. This is a poor women who has done nothing wrong and it's a serious case and she has a hard task ahead of her.

this is why i can never serve on a jury.. i'm a strongly opinionated person and will fight for what i believe in.

You could still serve. Just sounds out if everyone else doesn't feel the same way as you that it could be a hung jury

 

[gamom]

Ok, I finally listened to her testimony. Don't throw things at me, but I don't think either side questioned her enough to find out if she was competent or not. Judge Perry had a good point.We spent up to 4 hours on the first guy and at the very least over an hour on others. This lady was up there for less than hour. Her vir deer (sp?) was non existent from the state and 5 minutes from the DT. She WAS prejudged and there for discriminated against for whatever reason. JA stood up and said we move to strike and did not even attempt to have her stricken for cause. Even though the reason he cited could have been argued for cause. I don't think JA is racist nor do I think he wanted her off for that reason. I think it is clear why he wanted her off, but he should have argued those facts. I heard nothing from her that said she could not be fair. Her comprehension could have been explored with a few other questions. MOO

 

[justthinkin]

Also does anyone think she might have said she can't judge people in order to get out of jury duty? Especially since she appears to not really like to have to socialize with people?

Yes, I thought so, and it just occurred to me she may also be a juror who quits in the middle of trial. If she doesn't socialize, how does she spend her time? She said, playing video games. Well I know well that some of them are quite addictive, and it's my belief, this woman is going to struggle to maintain for the duration of the trial when she has zero access to a computer.

This trial is going to force her to learn a different way of getting through each day and evening. Can she do it? I don't think so.

 

[uklaw]

She will not understand the grim and professional state as well as she will the folksy, flirty defense.

Respectfully snipped (I couldn't respond to such a detailed post ).

TBH, when Ashton questioned this lady he seemed quite personable. I think he can connect with people and Jurors. So, although he is not as flamboyant, charismatic and jovial as JB he should still be able to connect. So I am unsure if it as much as a negative for the state as you may first think.

This will not be positive for the state, IMO.

I am not sure here. At first, I thought like you. However, with time my opinion has shifted. This is a bit of a double edged sword for both sides here. She may not be initially that amenable to the Prosecution case as she is to the Defense case because of her issues.

However, she also probably isn't that sociable and she comes accross as the person who would succumb to pressure more easily than most. So if the rest of the jury are convinced that ICA is guilty this juror is less likely to be a hold out juror than others who might believe the Defendant is not guilty when the rest of the jury think she is guilty.

 

[Leila]

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!

From what I understand, and I'm not an attorney, the final round of questioning is shorter than the second round. The state and defense ask a few questions to clarify a PJ earlier statements and at that point can exercise one of their dismissals.

 

[Whome?]

Ok, I finally listened to her testimony. Don't throw things at me, but I don't think either side questioned her enough to find out if she was competent or not. Judge Perry had a good point.We spent up to 4 hours on the first guy and at the very least over an hour on others. This lady was up there for less than hour. Her vir deer (sp?) was non existent from the state and 5 minutes from the DT. She WAS prejudged and there for discriminated against for whatever reason. JA stood up and said we move to strike and did not even attempt to have her stricken for cause. Even though the reason he cited could have been argued for cause. I don't think JA is racist nor do I think he wanted her off for that reason. I think it is clear why he wanted her off, but he should have argued those facts. I heard nothing from her that said she could not be fair. Her comprehension could have been explored with a few other questions. MOO

This is the way I saw it too. Should she have been dismissed the first day YES, Should the SA office have questioned her more YES. Were JP hands tied YES,via CM. Do I think JA is a racist NO. Am I happy with this PJ NO. Who do I blame for this, IMHO SA for not taking the time,to question this woman.Does she have a family? Do we know that? Any siblings? Does she work none of that was explored by the state. Pretty poor job of X-examing,and CM was sitting there like a cobra just waiting. JMHO:maddening:

 

[gibby207]

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 surprises me..... Because I've always admired you here and thought you prolly had many, many friends. You know... my mom doesn't have any friends either. I analyze that to she was an only child, a bit spoiled, had mommy issues... and she's got an opinion. You WILL hear it. LOL I actually love that about people because I don't do passive-aggression well. I love my mom, and my friends love my mom, but she's not overly.... motherly or friendly, you know? She's got huge walls. Lotsa pain there.

I'm a bit wallsy myself where I have a lot of friends whom love ME because I walk around the jokester and listen to their problems but who actually know very little of me, make sense? People pleasin'.... that's what I'm about. BUT. Getting better as I get old.

wow. That was prolly TMI and I "harshed the buzz" but I just wanted to throw out there I've always loved your posts and miss your f'd up horsie. LOL Please consider me a friend................... even if you don't want me. HAHAHAHA :innocent:

 

[whiteangora]

Yes, I thought so, and it just occurred to me she may also be a juror who quits in the middle of trial. If she doesn't socialize, how does she spend her time? She said, playing video games. Well I know well that some of them are quite addictive, and it's my belief, this woman is going to struggle to maintain for the duration of the trial when she has zero access to a computer.

This trial is going to force her to learn a different way of getting through each day and evening. Can she do it? I don't think so.

I could be mistaken, but I thought Judge Perry mentioned that the jurors would have some video games to play in their rooms.
I still can't give up on this lady as a juror, she is not the first person to serve who may have limited knowledge of forensics.
Maybe the reason she hesitated before answering every question was because she is the type of person that actually thinks before answering.
I know people like that, when I ask them something I think they didn't hear me because they don't answer immediately.

 

[gibby207]

Gitana1 just depressed me.... LOL BUT. I'm one that likes my Band-Aid ripped off fast... not hair by hair. So. I trust in gitana1's judgment that this is totally f'd up and now I will be less than confident the remainder of the trial.

I defer to those more knowledgable than me. LOL

However.... I think she will say "fry her." But... that's just me and MOO.

 

[katydid23]

I think this woman is going to be more valuable for the state than we first imagined. She seems to be somewhat proper, and conservative and religious and thus will strongly dislike everything about Casey. She seems like a woman with old fashioned values and strong beliefs about family and respect. Even if she cannot follow all of the forensics, she will be able to see clearly what a disrespectful, lying, thieving brat Casey is.

And the PTSD defense will not work on this woman. I bet she has seen far worse abusive or dysfunctional families than the Anthonys. I think she will look at Casey's life and think she had it pretty good. A nice middle class suburb with her own room, a room for the child, bills paid for the child, a car to use, food paid for, 2 computers, a cell phone. No police reports of abuse were ever made. So this woman is going to look at Casey as if she were a spoiled rich kid, imoo. An evil spoiled rich kid.

 

[gamom]

I could be mistaken, but I thought Judge Perry mentioned that the jurors would have some video games to play in their rooms.
I still can't give up on this lady as a juror, she is not the first person to serve who may have limited knowledge of forensics.
Maybe the reason she hesitated before answering every question was because she is the type of person that actually thinks before answering.
I know people like that, when I ask them something I think they didn't hear me because they don't answer immediately.

Exactly. I just moved from California to the South. I admit, I have been guilty of prejudging people based on how quick the seem or ability to answer on their feet. I am guilty of thinking that a southern slang = not educated. I have since learned that to be completely false. After 3 years here, I have a new found respect for the words spoken in Sweet Home Alabama - "just because I talk slow does not mean I am stupid"

Unlike some of the other jurors, if she did not understand the question, she kept her mouth shut. Earlier people just guessed and answered. Usually the wrong answer and they had to be asked again.