SA peremptory challenge denied

[cluciano63]

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.

It can't be based on race and the judge was convinced it was a racial issue.

 

[uklaw]

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.

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.

 

[Rallihanna]

do the prosecution have any way to go back to the judge on this and appeal it? It seems really really odd...

 

[alwaysonmymind]

And another thing I read....:crazy:

The woman had been rehabilitated from her previous stance on not judging others. If JA felt she hadn't been, he REALLY should have taken the time to question her more about this. He didn't, and as it is, the record stands with her final answer being she could do what is asked of her. I hope JA is more careful with this tomorrow.

As for the DP, didn't she say she didn't believe in it, but could and would consider it if instructed to do so?

 

[gamom]

If I am not mistaken a few other POTs have gotten through and been very religious. Perhaps, when sequestered with these people they will have that religous discussion and she will (if she hasn't already) come to terms with it.

I kind of think she may have gone home after the first day and spoken to her church about it. Which could be the reason she was saying that she could do it today.

 

[cluciano63]

The judge's problem was that she later said she could do it, just as some other potential jurors had added/enhanced "iffy" responses earlier in the process and those jurors were not excluded.

 

[Whisperer]

Did she say she'd consider it?? Don't like this, not even a little bit..

 

[Whisperer]

Jury Pool = Slim pickings in Pinnellas, lots of hardships.

 

[Whisperer]

In my experience, the more educated the jury, the more likely of a conviction. I haven't been keeping track. How many professionals are seated so far?

 

[4realtho]

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.

 

[Carrington]

In my experience, the more educated the jury, the more likely of a conviction. I haven't been keeping track. How many professionals are seated so far?

That's a good question.
As far as I can remember 0.
Hope someone answers you.

IMO

 

[Whisperer]

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.

 

[Whisperer]

That's a good question.
As far as I can remember 0.
Hope someone answers you.

IMO

Out here, it's difficult to NOT find a profesional. They always convict. They don't tolerate criminals here....not even a little bit. We had the Scott Peterson case here.

 

[Whisperer]

Regardless, this jury will most likely take about 4 hours to convict her. The evidence is overwhelming.

......em..:waitasec: I said that about OJ.........nevermind!

 

[4realtho]

One thing about a less sophisticated juror with possibly limited technical comprehension - they may tend to see things as more "black" or "white" without all those mitigating shades of gray the DT is wanting the jurors to see. People with less complicated minds may not follow every nuance or jot and tittle of testimony, but they tend to be salt-of-the-earth folks who are perfectly capable of calling a spade a spade, and know that there is never a set of circumstances where it is ok to place duct tape over the mouth and nose of your two-year-old child and place her in a car trunk. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see that.

Great post. You know, we are all from different backgrounds, different races and we have different life experiences. Some of us are educated, some of us are highly educated and some of us are not educated at all but we are here for one reason and that's justice for Caylee.

It's true, there are a lot of distractions in this case but it's all smoke and mirrors. When we get right down to it, it's about Casey taking the life of her defensless child so she can live the beautiful life.

When the cold, hard facts of evidence are presented and the photos of the dumpsite, the duct-taped remains, target, blockbuster and Casey dangling from a stripper pole all during the time Caylee was no where to be found is presented, no one will look at Casey and think that what she did was understandable.

If the DT was smart, they would have struck this juror.

 

[cluciano63]

If this juror has a 3rd round of interviews and says something totally unacceptable by either side, I believe she could still be dismissed, if it is a new and separate issue.

 

[Gma Kat]

From my POV, the lady could have been lily white and I'd still think she has no business on a jury. It really is a question of common sense, to me. but I'm not a judge or a lawyer...

ITA...........isn't is interesting that since we are unable to actually see the PT's we are judging them solely on what we "hear" them say. We are probably "listening" to the PT's on a higher level because of it. It makes sense that we may be picking up on nuances those in the courtroom cannot. To go one further, we may be a little more perceptive because of it. KWIM?

 

[Amster]

If this juror has a 3rd round of interviews and says something totally unacceptable by either side, I believe she could still be dismissed, if it is a new and separate issue.

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

 

[Gma Kat]

One thing about a less sophisticated juror with possibly limited technical comprehension - they may tend to see things as more "black" or "white" without all those mitigating shades of gray the DT is wanting the jurors to see. People with less complicated minds may not follow every nuance or jot and tittle of testimony, but they tend to be salt-of-the-earth folks who are perfectly capable of calling a spade a spade, and know that there is never a set of circumstances where it is ok to place duct tape over the mouth and nose of your two-year-old child and place her in a car trunk. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see that.

bbm: I so agree. I can think of two people in my life who are just as you described. I had to get to know them before I could have believed it though.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

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

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.