2011.05.10 - Sidebar Thread (Jury Selection Day Two)

[logicalgirl]

I was at home when I heard about this and had to go find a better computer with better speakers to verify it.

At around the 22:35 mark Jose tells Casey she is acting like a 2 year old.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27826830/index.html

I think this started a lot of the trouble today. Casey probably saw it as a death threat.

ICA didn't look particularly upset by that though - did you think she did? She tapped him on the arm and said something else but I didn't see a strong reaction at all.

 

[gitana1]

As I understand they are often unshackled during trial. I know this was the case in the Sarah Johnson case. Although IIRC SP was shackled (no handcuffs) during at leat part of the penalty phase..

Anyway. I need to go and do some work.

This case is too much of a distraction

Yes. That's true. They are unshackled if a motion is made by their attorneys and they are deemed not to be a risk. But that is the exception. Not the rule.

We see the high profile cases with trials that are televised, observed by tons of media, etc. And most of those involve white defendants from middle class backgrounds who have a private defense team. Try walking into a criminal court filled with poor defendants who no one really cares about. They are usually shackled and often kept in their prison garb for trial. Their public defenders don't often fight hard to have allowances made.

 

[Pattymarie]

While in court, why does ICA have access to a computer and probably the internet? She glances at it often. ( I suppose she'll be given her own cell phone soon, too)

 

[Bon]

Why am I the only one afraid of the DT's opening statement? Guess because I am so afraid of Casey walking and I just couldn't stand it!!!:banghead:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Listened to it - CM says a shocker - Baez says he can't win. Big shocker seems to be the prosecution can't say how "this child" died.

Yawn.

Agreed! They may not be able to say how "this child" died, but they can certainly prove that she didn't end up in the woods with duct tape on her head of her own volition!

 

[uklaw]

Unless a defendant has displayed prior bad behavior (threatening behavior) they are not to appear in front of the jury shackled so as not to influence the jury. However, they are brought in immediately before court and removed immediately when court is in recess.

Don't want to hammer this point however ICA cannot be the one determining when she comes or when she goes in/out of court. She gave up her freedoms when she was charges and held in this case. JMO

Although, having briefly looked at the case law on this matter the principle behind not shackling the Defendant include embarrasment to the Defendant, dignity and decorum of the court process, communicate with counsel and (I would imagine) take an active part in one's own defense.

Preparing the case and communication may neccesitate speaking afterwards to attorneys and briefly taking notes after the hearing. It is also embarassing for the Defendant to be hauled out immediately as if though she cannot be trusted to momentarily speak to the Attorneys.

All MO but I appreciate we will continue to differ on this.

However, I suspect a lot of people just want to see ICA have a hard a time as possible. A sort of pre-judgement punishment. Whilst, I understand the reasoning behind this (the State's worse allegations against her - or their worst theory - is/are quite atrocious) the desired punishment, discomfort, pain, embarasment, anxiety and whatever else you want to see inflicted upon her should rightly wait until (and indeed if) she is convicted.

 

[twall]

Just so I am clear, the 50 dismissed potential jurors are the jurors that were instructed by the Judge earlier in the day on Monday and then in the afternoon he sent those jurors home to return on Tuesday?

No, the 50 that were sent home were part of the second round of potential jurors.
They were done questioning the first group before lunch today.
The 50 that were dismissed had not been instructed yet by JP. He was going to do that after lunch but word got back they were wondering and speaking amongst themselves if they were there for ICA's case and then they started discussing their views on her guilt or innocence so they were dismissed. Still trying to figure out who the lady who gave the interview was referring to that came into the room and said she saw ICA.

 

[wonders]

Probably signs and announcements from court staff as people on jury duty file in.



According to the lady interviewed, she has salt and pepper hair, was part of the TES search team and had a falling out with GA during the search.

O so sorry gitana, we were wondering who the lady is that follows ICA out of the court room.

 

[uklaw]

Why does ICA have access to a computer and probably the internet? She glances at it often? ( I suppose she'll be given her own cell phone soon, too)

Again, I suspect the Deputies wanted to stop her using a computer. But I don't think you can properly tell her to stop looking at the screen.

Even the press were not prohibited from trying to film messages being passed between ICA and JB.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

ICA didn't look particularly upset by that though - did you think she did? She tapped him on the arm and said something else but I didn't see a strong reaction at all.

Jose and Kathi Belich show a bigger response to it. LOL LOL

 

[21merc7]

Why am I the only one afraid of the DT's opening statement? Guess because I am so afraid of Casey walking and I just couldn't stand it!!!:banghead:

Don't be afraid of it. Opening statements are just paragraphs to start a story. I don't think there is anything that can be said to shock us. Not abuse, not kidnapping, not mom did it or dad did it, we already have a line on the story and nothing will change what happened to an innocent baby.

 

[allycat1208]

I just heard one juror explain without being asked, that he believes that KC is guilty. The judge seemed to appreciate his frankness. They might as well ask them if they have formed an opinion first. That was quick. They seem to take a long time weeding out people for hardships.

 

[uklaw]

Yes. That's true. They are unshackled if a motion is made by their attorneys and they are deemed not to be a risk. But that is the exception. Not the rule.

We see the high profile cases with trials that are televised, observed by tons of media, etc. And most of those involve white defendants from middle class backgrounds who have a private defense team. Try walking into a criminal court filled with poor defendants who no one really cares about. They are usually shackled and often kept in their prison garb for trial. Their public defenders don't often fight hard to have allowances made.

That surprises me. As I understand Defendants generally appear in court unshackled wearing normal clothing. I have not seen a single case where the contrary has been the case (whether the Defendant be black, white, rich or poor). As I understand there is a constitutionality issue.

Interesting article for you to read.

Unlike the Supreme Court's reasoning regarding prison clothes, its rationale in shackling cases has not been grounded only in the presumption of innocence. See Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d at 1451 (recognizing that "the Supreme Court has not bottomed the prohibition against shackling on the presumption of innocence alone"). But see id. at 1454 (Edmondson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing that the presumption of innocence is "the single major analytical thrust" of the shackling cases).

In Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970), the Court recognized two additional "inherent disadvantages" to shackling a defendant at trial: physical restraints may not only cause jury prejudice and impair the presumption of innocence, they may also detract from the dignity and decorum of the proceeding and impede the defendant's ability to communicate with his counsel. Id. "The lower courts have observed two further weaknesses in imposing physical restraints: they may confuse and embarrass the defendant, thereby impairing his mental faculties; and they may cause him pain." Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing cases from other circuits), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 948 (1990).

With the exception of the presumption of innocence, these "inherent limitations" of shackling continue into the penalty stage of a trial. Because "there seems to be no reason to restrict the[se] principles to the guilt-innocence stage of trial," we conclude the constitutional rules regarding shackling at trial apply equally in the sentencing context. Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d at 1451.

This conclusion is supported by analogy to the treatment of the shackling issue in civil cases. There, the presumption of innocence does not apply. Nonetheless, relying on criminal case precedents, courts have held that when an individual's level of dangerousness is a question the jury must decide in a civil proceeding, it is a violation of the right to a fair trial to compel that individual to appear before the jury bound in physical restraints. See, e.g., Tyars v. Finner, 709 F.2d 1274, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 1983) (unconstitutional to compel the subject of a civil commitment hearing to wear physical restraints at trial); Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354, 356-58 (7th Cir. 1993) (impermissible to shackle plaintiff prison inmate in a civil rights action alleging excessive force by corrections officers). Cf. Holloway v. Alexander, 957 F.2d 529, 530 (8th Cir. 1992) (constitutional to shackle plaintiff prison inmate in civil rights action challenging constitutionality of living conditions in state prison, because plaintiff's status as dangerous felon irrelevant).

In the penalty phase of a capital trial, the jury knows the defendant is a convicted felon. But the extent to which he continues to be dangerous is a central issue the jury must decide in determining his sentence. "[N]ot all convicted felons are so dangerous and violent that they must be brought to court and kept in handcuffs and leg irons." Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d at 357. Unlike prison clothes, physical restraints may create the impression in the minds of the jury that the court believes the defendant is a particularly dangerous and violent person. Therefore, in the absence of a compelling need to shackle the defendant during his sentencing hearing, such a practice is inherently prejudicial.

The right to appear before a jury free of shackles, however, is not absolute. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1985). Shackling is inherently prejudicial, but it is not per se unconstitutional. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 716. Under certain circumstances, "shackling . . . may be appropriate because of the public's competing interest in courtroom security and the just administration of law." Id. at 722 (citing Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. at 344). Because of the potential for prejudice, however, due process requires that shackles be used only as a "last resort." Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 344.

It is a denial of due process if a trial court orders a defendant shackled without first engaging in a two-step process. Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145, 147-48 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended by, 997 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1993). "First, the court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances 'that some measure [is] needed to maintain security of the courtroom.' " Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.) (quoting Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 720), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832 (1990). "Second, the court must 'pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints.' " Id. (quoting Spain, 883 F.2d at 721). See also United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1401 (9th Cir. 1993).

A defendant's status as a convicted felon may justify a trial judge's concern for security. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d at 1482. Standing alone, however, this is not sufficient reason to impose physical restraints. Rhoden v. Rowland, 10 F.3d 1457, 1458 (9th Cir 1993). See also State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 350-51, 351 n.97 (Utah 1993) (holding that a murder conviction alone is not a sufficient basis for shackling a defendant at sentencing). In all the cases in which shackling has been approved, there has also been evidence of disruptive courtroom behavior, attempts to escape from custody, assaults or attempted assaults while in custody, or a pattern of defiant behavior toward corrections officials and judicial authorities. See, e.g., Morgan v. Bunnel, 24 F.3d 49, 51 (9th Cir. 1994); Hamilton v. Vasquez, 17 F.3d 1149, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d at 1401; King v. Rowland, 977 F.2d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir. 1992); Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d at 885; Stewart v. Corbin, 850 F.2d 492, 498 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989); Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d at 148

 

[allycat1208]

One woman said she doesn't want to serve due to her religious beliefs and they still wanted her to return. I don't know why they pursue it.

 

[Tipstaff]

Although, having briefly looked at the case law on this matter the principle behind not shackling the Defendant include embarrasment to the Defendant, dignity and decorum of the court process, communicate with counsel and (I would imagine) take an active part in one's own defense.

Preparing the case and communication may neccesitate speaking afterwards to attorneys and briefly taking notes after the hearing. It is also embarassing for the Defendant to be hauled out immediately as if though she cannot be trusted to momentarily speak to the Attorneys.

All MO but I appreciate we will continue to differ on this.

However, I suspect a lot of people just want to see ICA have a hard a time as possible. A sort of pre-judgement punishment. Whilst, I understand the reasoning behind this (the State's worse allegations against her - or their worst theory - is/are quite atrocious) the desired punishment, discomfort, pain, embarasment, anxiety and whatever else you want to see inflicted upon her should rightly wait until (and indeed if) she is convicted.

No UKlaw ...not the case. Simply do not want ICA to have one minute or one second of special treatment. Guess we will have to disagree on this one but enjoy your thoughts and posts. Keep them coming. :seeya:

 

[Scamperoo]

Why am I the only one afraid of the DT's opening statement? Guess because I am so afraid of Casey walking and I just couldn't stand it!!!:banghead:

Nope, not in the least, I feel no angst...I am anticipating with glee the Ah...ha! moment when all will be made clear:floorlaugh:

 

[uklaw]

In the very beginning of this case - IT WAS HUGE The media set up a webcam 24/7 on the front of the house that ICA and her parents lived in. We watched it constantly. There were protestors; some of those became combative; CA ended up waving a hammer wildly in the front yard one day; some lady came and stole their garbage that they put out on the street; GA turned the hose on a bunch of portestors one night; ICA was arrested on National TV during a prime time LIVE Nancy Grace show - LE pulled up in the yard with lights on...very right outta Hollywood scene!

So, yes, in the beginning of this case - the media coverage was huge and very much rivaled OJ's.

A whole bunch of us here have followed this case from day one (check out join dates - a lot of us signed up when this case broke).

This trial is going to be the trial of the decade if not the first half of this century - and for a whole lot of reasons.

Was this on the Check Fraud charges? I remember JB's criticism of this.

 

[GolferChick]

Exclusive: Casey Anthony attorneys hint at shocker in defense

The defense team hasn't even hinted about what story they will tell. But they told me we're in for quite a surprise.

"We suspect there will be some jaw-dropping," said defense attorney Cheney Mason. "We'll have to wait and see."

Casey's lawyers claimed three years of questions could be answered in three minutes at trial. It might shock the public.

Snip

In three minutes....really. You insult every thinking, reasonably-minded person that has read any of the official documents released about this case - not to mention the dedication and thousands of hours that the SA, LE, the FBI and others have put into obtaining justice for Caylee. I can't wait to see what outrageous, despicable story you will spew. If Caylee's death can be explained so simplistically, why didn't ICA take three minutes to 'splain it all to Yuri ???!!!

 

[chefmom]

Wow..............I just watched this video of an interview with one of the potential jurors that was dismissed today. She says the person who started talking about the Casey Anthony case in the jury room was living in Orlando at the time and knew Casey's dad or searched with Casey's dad, she couldn't remember which. She described the person as having salt and pepper hair. I didn't catch if the person was male or female, but had the impression it was female. She said about 20 - 30 people in the jury expressed their opinion that Casey is guilty. The reporter asked if anyone in the jury room expressed the opinion that Casey is not guilty and the woman said no, no one thinks she's not guilty.

This is a fascinating interview and gives us a glimpse into the jury pool.

http://www.wftv.com/video/27842588/index.html

(in today's news thread posted by ladonna)

WOW is right, Leila!!!! Thanks for that! :great: Not one person voiced that they thought she was innocent or wrongly accused! They all thought she was guilty! How much you wanna bet JB will be using this interview as a reason to claim KC can't get a fair trial?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

One woman said she doesn't want to serve due to her religious beliefs and they still wanted her to return. I don't know why they pursue it.

Because the defense wants her. They at least want the States Attorney to have to object to her and use up one of their objections or what ever it is called.