YAY! Pinellas it is! :great:...or maybe it's still a maybe...
Casey Anthony jury likely picked in Pinellas, sources in the courthouse confirm to ABC Action News
Anthony Jury to be picked in Pinellas, sources say
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_pinellas/casey-anthony-jury-to-come-from-pinellas%2C-sources-in-the-courthouse-confirmed-to-abc-action-news
fixed link
Can anyone tell me about the demographics of Pinellas? Or of key venues we don't want the jury to be selected from and ones we do? Trends in political affiliations, ethnic makeup of the population, age, etc.?
Thought for the day:
Between them LDB and JA have successfully prosecuted 30 capital cases and received the death penalty in 27.
This is great to know. That's a lot of capital case trials. They are very experienced. Compare that with jose baez. And I know he will not do the smart thing and step back and not participate in questioning of witnesses or opening or closing statements. His lack of experience will be a detriment in those areas.
Is there Case law on that?
It seems weird because the OJ COV was nothing like the original (they changed from a White dominated venue to a Black dominated COV, or is race excluded from the analysis of the "demographics").
Thanks
Well, I read a book once that stated the biggest mistake the prosecution made was not fighting the change of venue to that courthouse. So they didn't really try to argue against that venue based on a demographic that does not contain OJ's peers. But I don't do crim law and I don't know if there is some kind of statute of case law as to the demographics matching the defendant.
I guess I just don't "get" this massive interest in where the jury is coming from - while I do appreciate the other posters who do care very much. Let's just get 'er done!
We've talked a lot on the board about how lenient HHBP has been with Baez - and all I see is a river of denied motions - LOL
To me, between HHJP, JA and LDB, CM and JB - they are going to choose the best jury they can for this trial. I'm confident HHJP will stay true to his style and watch the questioning and choices like a hawk.
This ain't his first rodeo - unlike someone else in the group.....
The thing is, the judge doesn't have much more of a role in jury selection than watching unless attorneys make motions to exclude certain jurors. In other words, if he sees that the jury being selected may not be appropriate, I don't think he has much say. That's why jury selection can be very important. Just look at the OJ case. Jury selection caused a guilty man to walk free. Luckily, the state has a lot of experience in this. So does CM but I;m sure that the inexperienced JB will but in and make arrogant decisions without the experience to back them up.
I agree with your assessment. I know I couldn't survive on "jury pay" for two months, and many others wouldn't receive their paycheck from work either, let alone be able to be away from home that long. So single parents, those who would suffer a financial hardship, or anyone else who couldn't be sequestered are likely to not be serving on the jury, which leaves, as you suggest, those who are retired........or at least have a very generous employer. MOO
Or government workers. Teachers, firefighters, DMV workers, postal workers, etc. They get paid by their employer during jury duty.
There are also people on disability or unemployment who would be able to serve for two months and some welfare recipients. But I don't want a lot of young, single moms who receive welfare on the jury. Young moms of a higher economic status would be great but I wonder if there is a chance that less wealthy ones may have more sympathy for an unemployed, young mother whose parents won't let her have fun. It could go the other way though. They could feel disgust with a mom who used her parents and killed her kid rather than dealing with the system to make sure that kid is taken care of and that the child can stay with the mom. I don't know enough about jury selection. I don't have jury trials although I have helped my law partner with jury selection on a few of his crim. cases.
Yeah, he had a jury of the same skin color, but not the same socioeconomic status. He should have been tried in Santa Monica, where the crime was committed and by a jury of his rich peers. They did that in his civil trial, and they prevailed. The poor blacks who populated the downtown L.A./Inglewood area were star-struck by this black sports hero/multi-millionaire and refused to consider the evidence. They were in awe of his Italian designer suits, and none of them wanted to be the one to convict him!!!
Not only that, but the poor disenfranchised minorities out here in LA have a lot of experience getting unfairly harassed by the police, DWB, convicted mostly due to their skin color, etc., and a long memory of a history belonging to all Blacks in this country of young men being accused and getting lynched for whistling at a white woman, or whatever. So, this was the worst demographic for a guilty verdict for OJ. This was the one population who actually could conceive of a biased police investigation, crooked cops and a frame up of a fellow black man for a crime he did not commit. When it was determined that whats his face used the "N" word and participated in black face skits, that was all she wrote.
But who would record the trial for us :waitasec:
This guy: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/user/S0meRand0mName#p/a/u/0/nYkZ_WR6PC4"]YouTube - S0meRand0mName's Channel[/ame]
I don't love SOmeRandOmeName like I love our dear, sweet Patty G who works her tail off for justice, but he or she is going to try to post the whole dang thing, although it does take a long time to upload the videos.
MOO
