GUILTY ID - 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #95

[Megnut]

State coming in hot -- these are jury issues in any trial.

Cites percentages not connected to the college. Asks expert whether drawing a larger pool of potential jurors could answer the challenge of bias/exposure.

 

[arielilane]

Not much faith in our jurors to do their civic duty?
I believe there are jurors who can be unbiased, fair, and impartial, etc. imo

 

[arielilane]

@JordanSmithKXLY

Dr. Amani El-Alayi's conclusion: using jurors who have had less exposure to this story and are as far removed from Latah County as possible.


2:13 PM · Aug 29, 2024

 

[Megnut]

Next witness: Brian Edelman, trial consultant

Helps write voir dire questions!

I am so curious to see if JJ is going cut right through this.

So far, I'm not seeing anything that compels enough for moving the trial.

Her best argument, if she makes it, might be capacity of venue, whether Latah County can absorb the influx of witnesses, media, etc, but I'm not sure that alone is reason enough.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

I'm already finding some flaws in the studies she's quoting, in the metanalysis. Having a group fill out a survey, then evaluating their bias after the fact isn't sufficient to measure how objective subjects are. To replicate the jury selection process, you would need to develop 2 experimental groups - one a group of people who are exposed to the stimulus, then giving their opinions; the second group would be exposed to stimulus, but before measuring their opinion, give them a talk about how to remain unbiased in spite of what they've heard or read, and base their opinion only on what they hear and see in the trial, then measure their opinion.

That's how voir dire works, right?

When using meta analysis, you have to read the details of each trial used in the analysis and judge how well it's designed. Not all are equal in quality.

BBM

Assuming potential jurors answer questions truthfully (which is not always the case) I believe voir dire can often find out what potential jurors consciously think. ("To see them say") But often the problem is what jurors may unconsciously think. Unconscious thoughts about a defendant's guilt may come from lots of things but media coverage & bias is one.) I don't think it's possible for attorneys to deliver an effective lesson during voir dire on how "outsmart" one's unconscious bias. And signs of that bias may arise during deliberations. I saw it happen when I was on a jury and I can promise the voir dire had been thorough. (During lengthy and sometimes heated deliberations someone said "he probably wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't guilty.")
MOO

 

[Betty P]

Ok, I think after this some of us should form our own trial consultant business.

 

[Betty P]

BBM

Assuming potential jurors answer questions truthfully (which is not always the case) I believe voir dire can often find out what potential jurors consciously think. ("To see them say") But often the problem is what jurors may unconsciously think. Unconscious thoughts about a defendant's guilt may come from lots of things but media coverage & bias is one.) I don't think it's possible for attorneys to deliver an effective lesson during voir dire on how "outsmart" one's unconscious bias. And signs of that bias may arise during deliberations. I saw it happen when I was on a jury and I can promise the voir dire had been thorough. (During lengthy and sometimes heated deliberations someone said "he probably wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't guilty.")
MOO

We could probably judge that better if any of the studies done included analysis of how voir dire affects judgment vs non exposure to voir dire.

ETA: JMO, it also has to do with the amount of evidence presented at trial. If the prosecution has a lot of direct and circumstantial evidence and witnesses, pretrial publicity probably doesn't have much impact. Perhaps it would have some impact if there wasn't much strong evidence one way or the other.

Regardless of pre trial publicity, I don't think people's opinion will be swayed by it if there's a lot of strong evidence presented at trial. BTW, this is why prosecuting attorneys try really hard to not have their case tried in the news media before the trial. It's why they work hard to reveal as little as possible about their evidence before trial. Also why defense attorneys try very hard to reveal it all.

 

[Megnut]

Here's my struggle: juries are made up of people. There's no way around that. People who come with checked and unchecked biases, varying levels of education and awareness, honesty and diligence. Different backgrounds.

Which is why there is voir dire, to seat a jury that satisfies both sides as best as can be done.

So far, AT hasn't IMO presented anything the Judge doesn't already know.

We're talking about what, 16 people? 12 person jury plus alternates. Surely through voir dire, with Edelman as her consultant, potential jurors with overt bias can be stricken. Round 1, Round 2. I've seen cases where judges start with 1000 potential jurors.

I see no reason why that process can't be successful here.

JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

We could probably judge that better if any of the studies done included analysis of how voir dire affects judgment vs non exposure to voir dire.

Perhaps. I wasn't addressing social psyc experiments but rather what voir dire can or can't accomplish. (But a study doesn't have to be labeled a study of "voir dire" to be applied to it so some of the cited studies may be relevant.)

Regardless, it seems pretty unrealistic to think brief verbal instructions from an attorney given during jury selection will alter a chosen juror's unconscious feelings or bias that may arise during deliberations. We know that sort of intervention can't work to change unconscious feelings based on lots of real life clinical situations -- a therapist can't simply tell a client to "stop those unconscious thoughts-- think this way instead!" We also know unconscious bias affects the information one takes in. That applies to jurors too.
MOO

 

[arielilane]

Recess

 

[Megnut]

Taking a brief break in the Courtroom.

Judge not happy with the published image of various media websites.

Jmo

 

[arielilane]

We're back on the record. An EWU Professor is taking the stand, discussing how publicity of a case can shape potential jurors. Specifically, how jurors might struggle to be objective because of media saturation, among other issues.

Her name is Dr. Amani El-Alayi, a social psychologist

This is an interesting 1-2 punch by the defense: they open with a witness proving Latah County is saturated with the most news about this case in the state, then follow with an expert in social psychologist who says these stories often create pretrial bias and assumption of guilt

For instance, she references classical conditioning: When media pairs a defendants picture with aversive terms, murder details, well-known killers, it often illicits a negative response from viewers.

Dr. Amani El-Alayi's conclusion: using jurors who have had less exposure to this story and are as far removed from Latah County as possible.

@JordanSmithKXLY

 

[Betty P]

Perhaps. I wasn't addressing social psyc experiments but rather what voir dire can or can't accomplish. (But a study doesn't have to be labeled a study of "voir dire" to be applied to it so some of the cited studies may be relevant.)

Regardless, it seems pretty unrealistic to think brief verbal instructions from an attorney given during jury selection will alter a chosen juror's unconscious feelings or bias that may arise during deliberations. We know that sort of intervention can't work to change unconscious feelings based on lots of real life clinical situations -- a therapist can't simply tell a client to "stop those unconscious thoughts-- think this way instead!" We also know unconscious bias affects the information one takes in. That applies to jurors too.
MOO

I would have agreed with you before I went through a jury selection process. Having done so (I wasn't chosen as they already had the number of jurors needed before they got to me), I was very much impressed with how they stressed and explained the process of remaining unbiased. It does have an impact, it changed my POV.

Also, as mentioned before, the impact of unconscious bias varies according to the amount and quality of evidence presented at trial, as does deliberation with a jury of one's peers.

 

[Betty P]

Taking a brief break in the Courtroom.

Judge not happy with the published image of various media websites.

Jmo

I was distracted and missed that. What were they showing?

 

[arielilane]

No tweets on X from @JordanSmithKXL after Dr. Amani El-Alayi stepped down.

 

[Megnut]

I wonder if BK ever did interview actual convicts for his research, but if he did, did he ask what went through their minds at trial? Granted this is merely a hearing, but what is going through his? I sense duper's delight.

All the attention he couldn't get naturally...

Now he has staff (i.e. his legal team) doing his bidding.

The process itself is very impersonal. I mean, they're taking about him and he's right there. Maybe real life is a lot like that for him. Talked about but rarely talked to? Outsider, looking in? Insider, looking out.

Is it possible for him to box out what happened around 4:10am that morning? Or is fully grounded in the moment here, like he's on TV in the TV?

Has to be surreal.

I see no discomfort. No remorse. No real engagement even.

JMO

 

[pseudo_hum]

I wonder if BK ever did interview actual convicts for his research, but if he did, did he ask what went through their minds at trial? Granted this is merely a hearing, but what is going through his? I sense duper's delight.

All the attention he couldn't get naturally...

Now he has staff (i.e. his legal team) doing his bidding.

The process itself is very impersonal. I mean, they're taking about him and he's right there. Maybe real life is a lot like that for him. Talked about but rarely talked to? Outsider, looking in? Insider, looking out.

Is it possible for him to box out what happened around 4:10am that morning? Or is fully grounded in the moment here, like he's on TV in the TV?

Has to be surreal.

I see no discomfort. No remorse. No real engagement even.

JMO

Granted; detached from reality, IMO.

 

[Megnut]

I was distracted and missed that. What were they showing?

It was a screen grab of the top news videos with a boolean search of the defendant's name. National news clips.

I'm sorry, but AT is only making the case for careful voir dire in the context of universal, known jury challenges.

Edelman is the right guy to help her write her questions to weed out the most biased of jurors.

It's not a perfect system but it's one of the best.

I see the Judge summarizing the whole of this argument in about three sentences. Bias exists. We take steps to mitigate it. Then we trust jurors.

JMO

 

[arielilane]

@JordanSmithKXLY

3 hours in, here’s the main takeaway: Defense says excessive media coverage creates pre-trial bias.
Their solution? Move the trial where there’s been less coverage.
Still 2 experts to go. We’ll go another 45 and break for lunch. It’s looking like a long day in court.

3:06 PM · Aug 29, 2024

 

[NCWatcher]

I would have agreed with you before I went through a jury selection process. Having done so (I wasn't chosen as they already had the number of jurors needed before they got to me), I was very much impressed with how they stressed and explained the process of remaining unbiased. It does have an impact, it changed my POV.

Also, as mentioned before, the impact of unconscious bias varies according to the amount and quality of evidence presented at trial, as does deliberation with a jury of one's peers.

I've gone through the selection process 5 times. Only been seated 3 times.

Every time the voir dire I and others endured seemed pretty rigorous. Yet during deliberations in two of the three trials jurors I was seated with said things that reflected clear biases.

Instructions during voir dire of the sort you cite can affect conscious thinking and one's conscious POV but those instructions likely won't affect unconscious biases at all. Anyone can have those biases but they may be strengthened by long periods of media bombardment. And if there was more of that in Moscow, that's a concern especially if it was inaccurate at times.

Nobody wants to have to do this twice.
MOO