GUILTY FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015

[SeesSeas]

I'm not at court today (had to work), so I am just now catching up on the blog to find out what has happened during the past 3 hours. Court started late (again!).
Per the news blog, another alternate juror has been seated.
The blog refers to the ill juror as "she". The remaining 3 alternates were all female. Now there are 2 alternates.
So, a female replaced a female.
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
ZACK (11:04 a.m.)
Judge Chris Helinger comes in and immediately says: “Do you want Mr. Jonchuck present when we discuss the juror problem?”
Yes.
Jonchuck enters wearing a light bluish gray shirt and patterned tie.
One juror called and said “she would not be coming today because she has a stomach problem,” the judge explains.
That means another alternate will slide into her seat. Two out of four alternates up to the plate now.
Remember, one juror was excused last week because he doesn’t live in the county where the trial is taking place.

 

[SeesSeas]

Paralegal Kyrsten Malcolm will not testify any more in front of the jury.
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
LANE AND ZACK (12:19 p.m.)
The judge sends home the paralegal, Kyrsten Malcolm. She will not testify any more in front of the jury. She was on the stand the last time they heard testimony, but Helinger will simply instruct the jurors that the lawyers did not have any more questions for Malcolm.

So the jurors won’t get to hear her say that, on the day before he murdered his daughter, Jonchuck said the custody issue wouldn’t matter any more because, “If I can’t have her, then no one else will.”

Everything you’ve read from Thursday afternoon to now, the jury does not know.

 

[SeesSeas]

Witness testimony - Peter Bursten, forensic psychologist
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
LANE AND ZACK (12:40 p.m.)
Bursten, who has sat through much of the trial in the gallery over the last week, is explaining his specialty: forensic psychology. Though Bursten testified during a pretrial hearing the week before the trial started and has sat in court, this is the first time the jury has heard him.

LANE AND JOSH (11:38 a.m.)
The jury is still not in the courtroom.

The defense is arguing that during his testimony, psychologist Peter Bursten should not be able to use the term “catathymic violence.” The reason, defense lawyers argues, is that Bursten never used the term in his deposition or his report, and they’ve never heard of it before.

 

[SeesSeas]

Judge scolds defense attorney Manuele
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
ZACK (11:50 a.m.)
Helinger is losing her patience with interruptions from Manuele at the defense table.
“Do not interrupt,” the judge says. “It’s not professional to stand up and hold a book as he’s testifying.”
Later: “Sit down!”
It’s the second time she’s scolded Manuele this morning.
Still no jury.

 

[SeesSeas]

Judge jokes "If I took one of these tests, I might be a psychopath"
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
JOSH, LANE AND ZACK (11:54 a.m.)
Helinger is leaning over looking at a poster board prosecutor Doug Ellis holds in front of Bursten that lists characteristics of being a psychopath. She is leaning on her elbows on the bench, chin in her palm.

“If I took one of these tests, I might be a psychopath,” the judge jokes.

“We’ll save that for another day,” Bursten replies.

The psychologist lists some of Jonchuck’s criminal offenses and convictions, including reckless driving, probation violation, assault on a law enforcement officer, domestic violence against his mother and Phoebe’s mom.

Jonchuck is sitting, slightly hunched, at the defense table, his mouth hanging half open. His brow is furrowed. He turns to public defender Jane McNeill.

“What is he talking about, Jane?” Jonchuck whispers to her.

 

[SeesSeas]

FIREWORKS:
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
JOSH, ZACK AND LANE (1:40 p.m.)
The whole debate ends abruptly in fireworks. Ellis, boiling over, stands up and objects. “Asked and answered” he says in a raised voice.

Manuele who has been standing as she addresses the judge, suddenly turns to the prosecutor, saying, “”Would you please swat him?” She clarifies she wants the judge to chastise Ellis and instruct him to sit down and not interrupt her. (Remember, Manuele was scolded this morning for interrupting the judge.)

Helinger instead addresses Manuele, calling her unprofessional and telling her to sit down. “I was in the middle of speaking,” Manuele says back.

At that moment, Helinger breaks for lunch. We’ll return at 2:15 p.m.

LANE, JOSH AND ZACK (1:33 p.m.)
With the jurors out of the court (breaking for lunch), the defense moves for a mistrial.

“Dr. Bursten’s testimony was consistently about uncharged bad acts,” Manuele says. The psychologist indicated “there were seven or eight in-school suspensions, that he was suspended for fighting, that he was let go from a previous employer. He defaulted on loans on a condo …” The psychologist said Jonchuck indicated he had a check machine, he was printing fraudulent checks, he used Phoebe’s money for drugs …

“All of these are inadmissible,” Manuele says. “We don’t think any of it should come in.”

And: “This is a character assassination.”

This is the second time the defense has motioned for a mistrial. The first time came after the state rested its murder case two weeks ago. That motion, obviously, was denied.

Manuele is saying the jury needs to hear a “curative instruction” to protect against them hearing these prior bad acts and using them to reach a guilty verdict.

She’s raising her voice, consulting other cases, gesturing at the judge.

Prosecutors Doug Ellis and Paul Bolan look like they’re getting impatient. Ellis has a pen in his mouth and is pacing with his hands behind his back. Bolan leans back in his chair with his chin in his palm. The trial was held up for more than an hour this morning addressing issues raised by the defense. Now, with the jury at lunch, it’s more of the same.

“I respectfully disagree with you,” Helinger says to Manuele.

“Not every single thing comes in,” the judge continues. But this has been a theme of defense challenges and Helinger’s opinion from the start — because we’re examining Jonchuck’s sanity, some evidence of his history of misbehavior or outbursts is relevant.

 

[SeesSeas]

. . . lawyers and judge seem exasperated. . .
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
LANE, JOSH AND ZACK (3:03 p.m.)
Bursten’s testimony is being halted, several times, by Helinger interjecting and telling jurors to disregard certain portions of what he’s saying. The jury hears it, but they’re not supposed to consider it. It’s pretty hard to follow.

We’ve not heard the judge tell the jury to disregard testimony before this. And the defense is objecting to Ellis’ questions at an unprecedented rate for this trial. The legal chaos that has taken place in the absence of the jury seems to be bleeding into the testimony.

Helinger calls the lawyers to the bench. Another conference.
[...]

LANE, ZACK AND JOSH (2:45 p.m.)
Only 20 minutes after the jury came back from lunch, the judge sends them out again. “Okay, ladies and gentlemen, back to the jury suite,” she says. “It shouldn’t be long.”
[...]
“I repeat, Ms. Manuele, if he gets convicted and I am wrong, he’s going to get a new trial.”

It’s clear tensions are still high, and both the lawyers and judge seem exasperated by some of the ongoing evidence debates in the courtroom.

 

[SeesSeas]

Jurors leave for the day. Bursten stays for proffer testimony.
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
LANE, JOSH AND ZACK (3:28 p.m.)
Ellis asks if Bursten has done any “testing.” Bursten says he did some psychological assessments. Here’s where we will most likely get into a discussion about the psychopathy checklist, one of the most controversial elements of the trial. As if on cue, the defense objects and there’s a bench conference.

At 3:24 p.m., Helinger sends the jurors home. She has to consider some more evidence, and whether to let the jury hear it, she explains. She tells the juror who said he had seen a reference to the trial on Facebook not to go on Facebook.

The jurors leave.

From the defense bench, Jonchuck addresses the judge. “Your honor, I have a shot that I have to take as part of my medication,” he says slowly, his speech slightly slurred. “And I’d like to excuse myself to see the doctor to get that medication” before the doctor leaves.

“Okay,” the judge says, nodding. “We’ll see you tomorrow.”

“See you tomorrow,” Jonchuck says.

He stands up and walks out, escorted by a deputy, waving to his lawyers as he leaves.

The shot he has to take is Haldol, a psychotropic drug. He also takes Haldol orally, as well as five other oral medications. The injection happens once a month. Read more about his drug regimen here.

 

[SeesSeas]

https://www.tampabay.com/florida/2019/04/08/the-trial-of-john-jonchuck-day-15-rebuttal-begins-in-earnest/
April 8, 2019
ZACK, JOSH AND LANE (5:23 p.m.)
We may not get resolution on this arrest/non-arrest question until the morning. For now, what we can say is the lawyers and judge spoke in the courtroom like Michelle Kerr had been arrested. But there’s no public record we can find right now that shows an arrest. We’ve reached out to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, from which Manuele says she got the records, for clarity. It’s possible there was some kind of incident involving Kerr and Kisser, but it didn’t actually lead to an arrest. We’ll update when we can.

LANE (5:03 p.m.)
Manuele says Kerr was arrested on Jan. 3, 2015 — just days before Jonchuck dropped Phoebe off the bridge. We’re looking for a record of that arrest and can’t find it — not in her state criminal record nor in court or jail records. We’re going to keep looking. Until then, we do have reporting to share on a DCF call made by Jonchuck accusing Guy Kisser, Kerr’s boyfriend, of having knives in the house and chasing the kids around with weapons. Maybe Jonchuck made that up, but that could indicate he didn’t think Kerr and Kisser had a stable home. Did either side pull those DCF reports? They surely speak to Jonchuck’s mindset just before the murder and raise doubt about whether he really could have believed that Kerr’s new relationship or home were stable.

JOSH, LANE AND ZACK (4:46 p.m.)
Bursten said Jonchuck was threatened by Kerr and Kisser’s relationship and believed it was stable.

The defense seems to want to introduce the Sheriff’s Office reports to imply Bursten’s sources were unreliable on this specific topic. The prosecution has suggested Jonchuck killed Phoebe in part because he feared Kerr would get custody of his daughter.

But the defense is claiming that Kerr was arrested just days before Jonchuck killed Phoebe, and it’s relevant that her house was not actually stable.
[...]
Manuele argues that Jonchuck telling the paralegal the custody fight would not matter could be because Kerr had been arrested … not because he was going to kill Phoebe. Manuele says the defense only just got these reports, after their experts testified.
[...]

 

[MsMarple]

Witness testimony - Peter Bursten, forensic psychologist
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 15: Watch the rebuttal begin in earnest
April 8, 2019
LANE AND ZACK (12:40 p.m.)
Bursten, who has sat through much of the trial in the gallery over the last week, is explaining his specialty: forensic psychology. Though Bursten testified during a pretrial hearing the week before the trial started and has sat in court, this is the first time the jury has heard him.

LANE AND JOSH (11:38 a.m.)
The jury is still not in the courtroom.

The defense is arguing that during his testimony, psychologist Peter Bursten should not be able to use the term “catathymic violence.” The reason, defense lawyers argues, is that Bursten never used the term in his deposition or his report, and they’ve never heard of it before.

Thanks for keeping us in the loop, SeesSeas! Whew, what a trial! I had to look up "catathymic violence" and found this from a psychologist:

"In a catathymic crisis, the individual nurses grudges and ruminates over grievances to the point that he or she becomes hyper-obsessed and pathologically self-focused. This is most likely when a person is already psychologically disturbed. If he or she doesn't get help and won't let the matter drop, the obsession can build up to a state of rage-fueled cognitive dissonance so profound that the person experiences a dissociative or psychotic state."

The 3 Types of Men Who Murder Their Children
More at the link. The doctor points out that it doesn't necessarily mean the perpetrator is psychotic (insane).

After reading many of the docs from the Jonchuck trial, especially some of the depositions, I do believe he murdered Phoebe out of rage and revenge.

Depositions of relatives who have known Jonchuck all his life paints a picture of an intelligent man who throughout his life became enraged when he didn't get his way and believed he was smart enough to commit acts of violence and get away with it.

IOW, my gut tells me he's a master manipulator who lacks empathy and saw Phoebe as both a "tool" to use and also possibly as competing with him for attention. Some of my thoughts come from reading the depositions of his mother and uncle:
https://hpc.pinellasclerk.org/CaseData/15-00226-CF/41114081.pdf
https://hpc.pinellasclerk.org/CaseData/15-00226-CF/45176552.pdf

https://hpc.pinellasclerk.org/CaseDisplay.cshtml?CaseNbr=15-00226-CF&page=1
What kind of man would drop his daughter off a bridge?

In any case I smell an appeal if Jonchuck is convicted, based on the actions of his defense attorneys. Whether a higher court will agree to a new trial is unknown.

Sorry for the long post - I believe this is an important trial in that it illustrates not only the callousness of a parent who only sees their needs and wants and uses an innocent child to deploy their rage but also the methods they incorporate into a defense in order to avoid punishment. IMO Jonchuck is a psychopath - but he's not insane.

 

[Niner]

Good post MsMarple & agree with you - he is a psychopath - but not insane...

and YES!! SeesSeas

for keeping us all informed!

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, April 9th:
*Trial continues (Day 11) (@ 9:30am ET) – FL – Phoebe Jonchuck (5) (Jan. 18, 2015, St. Petersburg-thrown off 62’ bridge into Tampa Bay by her father) – *John Nicolas Jonchuck, Jr. (25/now 28) arrested & charged (1/18/15) with 1st degree murder, aggravated assault with a vehicle on LE officers & aggravated fleeing & eluding police. Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Held without bond.
Jury trial started 3/25/19. Jurors: 4 women & 8 men (alternates: 2 women/1 juror was dismissed on 4/4;1 juror was dismissed on 4/8). Jurors may ask witnesses questions. (Trial could take at least one week. General hours are going to be 9am until 7pm).
Jury Selection (Days 1-5; 3/18/19-3/22/19) & Trial (Days 1-9; 3/25/19-4/5/19) reference post #318 here:
FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015
4/8/19 Day 10: Another alternate juror has been seated. The ill juror is a "she". The remaining 3 alternates were all female. Now there are 2 alternates. The judge sent home the paralegal, Kyrsten Malcolm. She will not testify any more in front of the jury. She was on the stand the last time they heard testimony, but Helinger will simply instruct the jurors that the lawyers did not have any more questions for Malcolm.
State rebuttal witnesses: Peter Bursten, psychologist (specialty: forensic psychology). With the jurors out of the court (breaking for lunch), the defense moves for a mistrial. Motion denied. At 3:24 p.m., Helinger sends the jurors home. She has to consider some more evidence, and whether to let the jury hear it, she explains. She tells the juror who said he had seen a reference to the trial on Facebook not to go on Facebook. Trial continues on 4/9.

 

[SeesSeas]

Thanks for keeping us in the loop, SeesSeas! Whew, what a trial! I had to look up "catathymic violence" and found this from a psychologist:

After reading many of the docs from the Jonchuck trial, especially some of the depositions, I do believe he murdered Phoebe out of rage and revenge.

Good post MsMarple & agree with you - he is a psychopath - but not insane...
and YES!! SeesSeas

for keeping us all informed!

Glad to provide some eyes/ears from the courtroom. So tragic, yet so fascinating.

I have also read many of the depositions. And, I am always interested in the opinions of others. I'm on the fence and not yet leaning toward "psychopath" (the word that can't be used in front of the jury!).

It is intriguing how 3 experts gave compelling testimony regarding their opinion that Jonchuck was insane at the time of offense. So I am anxiously awaiting the testimony of the 2 experts who don't think he was insane. Dr Bursten started his testimony yesterday and will hopefully finish today. Then controversial Dr Lazarou is scheduled to testify.

My neighbor and I are heading to the courthouse soon. My main interest today is watching the jurors during the testimony of these 2 expert rebuttal witnesses. Perhaps the testimony today/tomorrow will lead me to disbelieve "insanity".

 

[SeesSeas]

LIVE video link is not yet posted, but will be at this link:
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 16: Through fits and starts, testimony continues

I am heading to the courthouse without technology.

 

[SeesSeas]

The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 16: Through fits and starts, testimony continues
John Jonchuck murder trial, April 9, 2019.

 

[SeesSeas]

Much discussion today about the PCL-R.
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, or PCL-R, is a 20-question test to gauge the degree to which someone has psychopathic traits.
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 16: Through fits and starts, testimony continues
April 9, 2019
ZACK AND LANE (1:38 p.m.)
McNeill questions the psychologist from the lectern. [...]

McNeill moves onto the PCL-R. The psychopathy checklist, she says, is not a test for insanity?“No, it’s definitely not,” Bursten says.

The defense is harping on this checklist because they didn’t want it to be mentioned during the trial in the first place. They argued the term psychopath or variations on it could make the jury more likely to deem Jonchuck guilty. The judge excluded “psychopath” but allowed some testimony about the checklist, and references to psychopathic tendencies or traits.

McNeill is hammering away.

Would you believe a person can have psychopathic characteristics and have a mental illness?

Yes, Bursten says.

Could they have psychopathic characteristics and be insane?

Yes.

“The PCL-R is not called an objective test?”

“No.”

Helinger calls for a bench conference. She’s scolding McNeill.

“Move on,” she says sternly, and it’s audible even from the gallery.

LANE, JOSH AND ZACK (9:44 a.m.)
Ellis brings another poster board to the witness stand, then places it on an easel in front of the jury. It shows a copy of the psychopathy checklist Bursten used in his evaluation of Jonchuck.

Several jurors take notes. One squints to see the checklist from his seat in the top row of the jury box, another leans forward to get a closer look.

“This really was developed to be a personality test,” Bursten explains.

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, or PCL-R, is a 20-question test to gauge the degree to which someone has psychopathic traits. Each of the 20 characteristics are scored on a three-point scale: 0 for no evidence of that trait, 1 for partial or possible evidence of that trait and 2 for having that trait. In testimony Bursten gave at a pretrial hearing last month, he said above 30 renders someone a “prototypical psychopath.” On two occasions, Bursten said at the time, Jonchuck scored a 32 and a 34 on the test.

LANE, ZACK AND JOSH (9:28 a.m.)
Bursten will be the only witness for today, the judge tells jurors. She reassures the one juror that he will be able to make his board meeting later today.

Ellis dives right into questioning, talking about the PCL-R — the psychopathy checklist that has already proven a sticking point in the case. The defense has wanted to keep all references to psychopathic traits out of the the trial.

 

[SeesSeas]

https://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136619689/can-a-test-really-tell-whos-a-psychopath
Can A Test Really Tell Who's A Psychopath?
May 26, 2011
[...]
About four years ago, Murrie decided to study the PCL-R to look at what happened when a psychologist hired by the prosecution gave Hare's test to the same prisoner as a psychologist hired by the defense.

Did those two psychologists give the same score to the same person?

The answer, says Murrie, was no. "Ten, 15, even 20-point score differences we found," he says, " And overall there was about an 8-point difference in scores."
[...]
"I'm very concerned about the inappropriate use of this instrument for purposes that have serious implications for individuals and for society," Hare says. "It shouldn't work that way."

In fact, Hare says, he is so disturbed by some of what he has seen as he has traveled through America training psychologists in use of the PCL-R, that he sometimes has trouble focusing on the way his test could be affecting people's lives.
[...]
Meanwhile, use of the PCL-R continues to spread; it's now mandated by statute in several states.
[...]

Psychopath Test
PSYCHOPATH TEST

My test:
Psychopath Test
Your score 20
Your score indicates that you have no psychopathic personality traits.

^^^ WHEW! No worries, eh?!

 

[SeesSeas]

Dr Bursten was the only witness today.
Tomorrow: Lawyers back in court at 9 a.m.; Jury back in court at 11 a.m.
This blog entry explains what the lawyers will debate Wednesday morning:
The Trial of John Jonchuck, Day 16: Through fits and starts, testimony continues
April 9, 2019
ZACK (3:58 p.m.)
Bolan says he spoke to psychiatrist Emily Lazarou last night and again today about the court’s ruling regarding the last three questions on the PCL-R: they are not allowed in and that the judge has set forth clear guidelines for discussing psychopathy.

Helinger says she also remembers Lazarou describing Jonchuck as “evil” and a “cold-blooded psychopath.” Helinger says that will not be allowed.

Manuele says the defense plans to challenge Lazarou’s qualifications, generally and to conduct the PCL-R. The defense plans to argue Lazarou was not trained to give the psychopathy checklist. They made a point of asking Bursten today whether someone needed special training to administer the checklist. Bursten said yes.

Bolan says Lazarou has administered the test before and has testified to those results. He says Lazarou was trained by her mentor. She gave the test and gave basically the same results.

Helinger is thinking about whether or not to have a hearing on this issue.

Ellis contends Bursten said someone can be trained in the checklist by someone other than the developer, Robert Hare.

Manuele says the defense still questions Lazarou’s training.
Bolan says Lazarou completed a Hare training not too long ago, after the fact.
“I’ll hear it,” Helinger says of the defense’s challenge, “and what comes of it comes of it.”
She tells the lawyers to be back at 9 a.m.

The defense apparently gave 700 pages of Lazarou’s prior testimony at other proceedings to the prosecution today. Bolan would like to know tomorrow where the defense plans to go with that.

He says the defense could try to impeach Lazarou on bias but not on prior bad acts. Jonchuck is suddenly walking out of the courtroom, escorted by deputies. Ellis points out the defendant is leaving.

Helinger asks if Jonchuck is waiving his appearance for the rest of the day. She asks if he wants to leave.
“Yeah,” he says.
The lawyers continue debating. Helinger is asking if she should read the 700 pages.
“I think it would be a huge waste of your time,” Manuele says.
Ellis is arguing the prosecution can’t tell the judge whether she should read the documents or not because the prosecutors just got it.
More late evidence, he says, obviously frustrated.
And with that we’re done for the day.

ZACK AND LANE (3:47 p.m.)
[...]
. . . the jury. She sends them home for the day. They will not come back until 11 a.m. tomorrow, because the lawyers anticipate having to debate statements from the next witness, Dr. Emily Lazarou, before the jury can hear her testimony. Lazarou has already been a source of controversy in this case, which you can read about here.
[...]

 

[SeesSeas]

Anxious to hear testimony of Psychiatrist Emily Lazarou (hopefully Wednesday).
Here is a news article about Lazarou written 4 months ago:
Will prosecutors lose a key witness in the John Jonchuck case? Defense attorneys say they should.
Updated December 7 2018

The lawyers will not debate whether John Jonchuck dropped his 5-year-old daughter off a bridge.

When the 29-year-old goes to trial on a first-degree murder charge more than four years after Phoebe’s death, his defense team will argue he cannot be convicted because he was insane when he killed her.

The case will hinge on the testimony of five doctors, who will offer conflicting opinions about what went through Jonchuck’s mind when he let go of his child. Jurors, most likely with no advanced medical training, will choose who they believe more.

Insane or not insane.

One of the doctors has drawn a direct challenge: psychiatrist Emily Lazarou, who plans to testify for the prosecution that Jonchuck was not insane.

By resume, Lazarou looks like a fine expert witness — a Baylor University alumna with multiple degrees and an active clinical practice. But defense attorneys don’t want jurors to hear from her at all. They say her methods are biased and coercive, and they’ve lined up another doctor to testify as much.

The challenge has halted an already long-delayed trial, illuminating a procedural slice of the justice system rarely in the public eye. There is no single oversight agency for expert witnesses in Florida, so their credibility is litigated on the fly.
[...]
Defense lawyers who have encountered Lazarou say she is flippant and confrontational. She once called a defendant an “Asian Beavis and Butt-Head” and said another was not schizophrenic in part because he wore Gucci shoes.
[...]

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, April 10th:
*Trial continues (Day 12) (@ 11am ET) – FL – Phoebe Jonchuck (5) (Jan. 18, 2015, St. Petersburg-thrown off 62’ bridge into Tampa Bay by her father) – *John Nicolas Jonchuck, Jr. (25/now 29) arrested & charged (1/18/15) with 1st degree murder, aggravated assault with a vehicle on LE officers & aggravated fleeing & eluding police. Plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Held without bond.
Jury trial started 3/25/19. Jurors: 4 women & 8 men (alternates: 2 women/1 juror was dismissed on 4/4;1 juror was dismissed on 4/8). Jurors may ask witnesses questions. (Trial could take at least one week. General hours are going to be 9am until 7pm).
Jury Selection (Days 1-5; 3/18/19-3/22/19) & Trial (Days 1-9; 3/25/19-4/5/19) reference post #318 here:
FL - Phoebe Jonchuck, 5, dropped from 60' bridge, St Petersburg, 8 Jan 2015
4/8/19 Day 10: Another alternate juror has been seated. The ill juror is a "she". The remaining 3 alternates were all female. Now there are 2 alternates. The judge sent home the paralegal, Kyrsten Malcolm. She will not testify any more in front of the jury. She was on the stand the last time they heard testimony, but Helinger will simply instruct the jurors that the lawyers did not have any more questions for Malcolm.
State rebuttal witnesses: Peter Bursten, psychologist (specialty: forensic psychology). With the jurors out of the court (breaking for lunch), the defense moves for a mistrial. Motion denied. At 3:24 p.m., Helinger sends the jurors home. She has to consider some more evidence, and whether to let the jury hear it, she explains. She tells the juror who said he had seen a reference to the trial on Facebook not to go on Facebook. Trial continues on 4/9.
4/9/19 Day 11: Peter Bursten continues testimony. Attorneys are back @ 9am to discuss Lazarou’s testimony, jurors back at 11am on 4/10.