2011.05.13 - Jury Selection DAY FIVE Afternoon Session

[JSR]

OK OK OK....everybody calm down about the "juror".....she isn't even on the final panel yet, right? Won't the state be able to strike her without cause.....? I mean, games not over yet, right??????????????????? Lawyers? Anybody?

No, I don't believe the SA can strike her. They already tried to use their peremptory strike and HHJP denied their challenge.

 

[Intermezzo]

I could not agree more with your post. That lady doesn't belong on this jury for many reasons, none of which involve her race. None of us here knew her race and we all came to the same conclusion that she can't grasp the issues that will be presented.

IMO
Listening to her the other day...she should have been excused then.

 

[Leila]

I'm sorry. Still stunned and hung up on the last juror. It all happened so fast. Mistrial is now a huge, huge possibility to me in this case. I thought justice was coming soon and now I am very worried that there is a good possibility it will have to wait for a couple of years. Sorry to be so dramatic but my professional instinct is very worried.

I have a lunch meeting to go to in a few and hopefully I will feel less negatively later on but for now I have lost my enthusiasm.

I think the state will use one of their 10 dismissals to dismiss her.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I'm sorry. Still stunned and hung up on the last juror. It all happened so fast. Mistrial is now a huge, huge possibility to me in this case. I thought justice was coming soon and now I am very worried that there is a good possibility it will have to wait for a couple of years. Sorry to be so dramatic but my professional instinct is very worried.

I have a lunch meeting to go to in a few and hopefully I will feel less negatively later on but for now I have lost my enthusiasm.

I think youre getting way ahead of yourself.

 

[krisskross]

Voir dire is such an important part of a case. I prey there is justice for Caylee, I'd feel really bad if ICA gets to slide on this because of a wild card juror.

She wouldnt slide....would be a mistrial surely.

I think the defense are hoping and preparing for this, with the hope that the State would then deal on accidental death/coverup.

 

[Tulessa]

Kim please use your ray gun on her. I am dead serious.

 

[Chiquita71]

AF: expert psychs. any bad experiences with them that would make you not listen?

no.

AF: every decision in a capitol case is important. will you bring the same importance to other things in life?

yes.

AF: is there any reason in your back ground that would cause you to be anything other than fair and impartial in this case?

no

 

[Patty G]

Can we get an exit ramp warning??? Like......next exit......in 5-4-3-2-

:great:

For sure. I will let you all know when I set my timer.

 

[Bon]

Just read where C & G may consider filing a lawsuit against Brad C., their former attorney for divulging the families dynamics and dysfunction in the media.

 

[sleutherontheside]

See what Ann Finnell just did...

She said the STATE would present victim impact evidence.

AF knows full well that KC's family will support her and not Caylee....so she is planting the seed that the victim's family will appeal to you. WHEN the VICTIM'S family DOES NOT.....
the juror will be led to an assumption and refer back to AF's words during jury selection.

Bingo....NOW I know why the DT has spent SO MUCH FRACKING time on victim impact.

They are setting the jurors up for the statements that will NEVER COME.

Subliminal suggestions.

 

[TiaM]

I can't take much of her.

She does lull me to sleep, but I find her so much less objectionable than Mason or Baez.

At least she has appeared professional, and seems to comes across as believing in doing her job to save ICA's life, because ICA is entitled to a defense.

As opposed to the reasons Mason and Baez seem to be in this, which are not as noble and too lengthy to list here.

IMO

 

[PAXIMUS]

I think the state will use one of their 10 dismissals to dismiss her.

Perry overruled it I believe as a racial dismissal. She is staying.

 

[nursebeeme]

Right next to the chin has now fused to the chest smilie.

I actually put my head on my desk!!! And I have to work tonight....

(((oh... and I need a chiropractor too!!!!)))

 

[reasonable]

I'm sure he does. But if you watch that exchange he revealed his own bias very clearly. I have admired him since we first saw him, but I think we saw a weakness there and it offended JA (and me). I am very anti-racist people, but it's not good to have an AA on the Jury just to be 'fair' if that particular person is one that does not seem to be able to grasp the simplest of theories.
If 11 of the Jurors were AA that would be fine with me, but if they then put a dumb white person on the Jury to ensure diversity I would be just as annoyed.

I am sorry to disagree about the court's "bias". What happened was perfectly correct. And had nothing to do, in my opinion, with the judge favoring any lawyer, side or race. It was a legal challenge made by the DT (CM) asking JA to justify that his striking of this potential juror was not based on her race. JA, IMO, had not asked enough questions to come up with a reason that would have passed muster with an appellate court. So the judge did what was correct and disallowed the strike of this juror by the state. It had nothing to do with bias. even by the state. There were great reasons why the state didn't want her, none of which were her race. But because, as the court put on the record, she was in a protected class (AA), you have to do a little more to completely avoid the appearance that her race was the issue. Same thing if someone strikes a woman because they want an all male jury for a particular case. You have to be able to show that you had another reason to strike her, not her gender.

This judge was correct. my opinion only.

 

[logicalgirl]

If you do that throughout trial you'll have buns of steel! Make an exercise video!!!!

What a special one for WS and the trial? Hey good idea! LG's bucket list - emphasis on the bucket!!!:great:

 

[Tulessa]

Here's to Kimster's ray gun!! :great:

 

[epiphany]

Judge: u said u can't consider age as a mitigating factor. correct?
P Juror: correct

 

[Apex-mom]

AF's droning, monotone, overly-soft-marshmellow tone is putting me to sleep. I think the pot jurors don't understand the question because it gets lost in her monotonous tone!

 

[sleutherontheside]

IIRC, the state only has enough money to keep the doors open to the end of June; unless I missed the latest update with regards to more money being available for a longer time.

It's OK Patty G. becasue the new fiscal year starts after.

 

[nursebeeme]

Just read where C & G may consider filing a lawsuit against Brad C., their former attorney for divulging the families dynamics and dysfunction in the media.

do you have a link?