SA peremptory challenge denied

[4realtho]

I'm too cynical. I should have listened closely. I fall asleep everytime I try to watch. I swear that woman attorney (Finnel?) who sheilds ICA from camera, can knock me out.

:floorlaugh:

 

[uklaw]

See, that's what I don't get. What reason did JA give to have her stricken? I thought the strikes each side got were not questioned - that they could remove whoever they didn't want until they used their 10 strikes up.

If either side moves to strke a juror - if that juror is a minority - then the other side can throw the race card. That just doesn't seem fair (or right).

I really don't understand why that all happened today cause like I said I thought the strikes were not questioned.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=476&invol=79

Although a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise [476 U.S. 79, 80] peremptory challenges for any reason, as long as that reason is related to his view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant.

Extract from Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), Per Curiam

 

[gitana1]

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.

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.

You know, I do believe that the state will be personable but the defense, well CM knows how to charm people, especially those who lack critical thinking skills. JB can charm such people as well. When the defense has no defense, they work on jurors they think they can sway. They get very good at this because often, it's all they have. The prosecution is not as good at that because usually they have the facts and LE in their favor. People tend to believe what LE says.

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.

No, it's not a matter of having a limited knowledge of forensics. I have a limited knowledge of forensics. It's having limited critical thinking skills and/or intellectual capacity. I listened close to this lady. As an attorney, I have to know how to quickly evaluate clients and witnesses to see how they seem when they testify, whether they can be coached, and whether they will comprehend the complexities of the case or ask repetitive, annoying questions, wasting time that could be better spent litigating on their behalf or whether they will request unsound strategies that are against their interest, etc. So, I can pick out the smart ones and the not-so-smart, the easily swayed or the illogical, etc., fairly quickly.

Based on my experience, I am very worried about this woman. So are most of the attorneys on this site. So was the state which is why they panicked and used their peremptory.

I do not understand this jury selection. I have been summoned an awful lot. They each have 10 pre-emps In ca, its 20). I didn't know a judge could overide a Pre-emp challange (at least I have never see that before). Florida is really, really different.

See below:

I think they probably could if there was a "Batson challenge".

To cut to the chase, the Batson case, is based upon the US constitution and applies to the States also. Regardless of what happens at the state trial court if the State uses a Peremptory Challenge to remove a juror and it is determined that it was racially motivated and that juror is seated then any conviction is liable to being overturned on appeal.

Exactly. Opposing counsel can object to a peremptory based on Batson. I have NEVER heard of such an objection succeeding though.

My take on this juror as far as the portion where she stated she didn't like to judge people by what other people say, was taken out of context. Personally, I think she was just stating this in general. I myself don't judge people just by what someone else states.

For instance, if you start a new job and a co-worker starts telling you something negative about the boss, do you believe it? I would hope not. Most likely you would give your boss the benefit of the doubt. If after time, you see for yourself that what the co-worker had stated was true, then you can make your own decision about the boss.

This goes for the evidence in the case. She can't judge now but once the evidence is presented then I think she will be able to make the right decison and she did state that that was what she would do.

She clearly stated that serving would pose a problem because she does not like to judge people.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=476&invol=79

The way I"m reading that is the defendant was AA and the state struck all the AA that were selected for the jury - leaving an all white jury who did convict.

How does that apply here? ICA is certianly NOT AA and I know of at least one other AA that's already been put through.

 

[gitana1]

See, that's what I don't get. What reason did JA give to have her stricken? I thought the strikes each side got were not questioned - that they could remove whoever they didn't want until they used their 10 strikes up.

If either side moves to strke a juror - if that juror is a minority - then the other side can throw the race card. That just doesn't seem fair (or right).

I really don't understand why that all happened today cause like I said I thought the strikes were not questioned.

Strikes can be objected to if the other side believes they were made for an improper or unconstitutional purpose. Peremptories are fine for any reason or none at all except if based on things like race, gender, religion, etc.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Strikes can be objected to if the other side believes they were made for an improper or unconstitutional purpose. Peremptories are fine for any reason or none at all except if based on things like race, gender, religion, etc.

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".

 

[cluciano63]

I don't think so. She's AA and to challenge her is racist. CM said so and HHJP agreed.

But what if under further questioning, which I believe there is, she says something totally different, unrelated to the issue about judging people, that would disqualify any juror? That is what I am unclear on. Or is she comes back and says, no, she cannot implement the death penalty for instance.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

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".

He gave the reason of her coming out in the beginning and saying she couldn't judge people. And HHJP sez, 'right-she did say that, HOWEVER, after further questioning she said she could do it.' So his reason to strike was invalid.

 

[Amster]

But what if under further questioning, which I believe there is, she says something totally different, unrelated to the issue about judging people, that would disqualify any juror? That is what I am unclear on. Or is she comes back and says, no, she cannot implement the death penalty for instance.

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.

 

[Amster]

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".

Yes, CM whipped out the race card. Sadly, HHJP agreed with him. JA was not allowed to give his entire reason for challenging her.

 

[uklaw]

The way I"m reading that is the defendant was AA and the state struck all the AA that were selected for the jury - leaving an all white jury who did convict.

How does that apply here? ICA is certianly NOT AA and I know of at least one other AA that's already been put through.

Well there is more than one reading of this. Also this case was over 30 years ago and case law may have developed (especially with ever changing SCOTUS membership).

But I have already picked up this point and have asked the question on the lawyers' thread. Waiting for an answer

 

[nanny1]

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:

 

[Paintr]

Strikes can be objected to if the other side believes they were made for an improper or unconstitutional purpose. Peremptories are fine for any reason or none at all except if based on things like race, gender, religion, etc.

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...

 

[Adrienne37]

I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see where Judge Perry agreed with Mason about it being a race issue. Mason stated that he wanted it on the record that this was a black juror and Judge Perry stated that there was no disagreement between them that this woman was of African-American heritage. Mr. Ashton pointed out two reasons he wanted to use the peremptory strike with the first one being the potential juror said she "does not like judging other people on what someone says." The second reason was because of her equivocal responses to the questions raised about the death penalty. The judge felt that her reasons were similar to those before her when they did not understand the questions and "based upon that, the court will disallow the peremptory challenge of that juror."

 

[cluciano63]

But the state wanted to use one of it owns p. challenges and should not have had to give a reason at all and it should not have been denied, even if the reason was not a good one...unless it was about race, sex, etc...

 

[Adrienne37]

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.

 

[crucibelle]

But the state wanted to use one of it owns p. challenges and should not have had to give a reason at all and it should not have been denied, even if the reason was not a good one...unless it was about race, sex, etc...

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.

 

[Leila]

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.

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.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

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, and the others were not. I hope this makes sense.

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.

 

[crucibelle]

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.

Yep, I realized that when I read Adrienne's next post and i edited my post to reflect that. Makes the ruling even more strange to me.. because the only basis on which a judge can over-rule a peremptory challenge is race, sex, etc (can't remember the other ones).