The Batson decision suggested that the rule only applied where the challenges were to jurors of the same race as the defendant, but there was a later Supreme Court case, Powers v. Ohio maybe?, that expanded the rule to all challenges based on race.
I think the comment you asked about just means that there is an obvious risk that peremptory challenges can be used for improper purposes.
Maybe it was--I just find that we cannot rely on the media to make subtle distinctions between things like bar complaints and lawsuits, chloroform and odor, etc.
There is no next phase. Unless HHJP reconsiders (cross your fingers!!)--or the defense strikes her before she is sworn in (I doubt it)--or HHJP follows the practice of selecting alternates by random lot instead of just taking the last 8 on the list and she's selected as an alternate--then she will be a juror.
Attorneys differ. I personally like to pick smart people, because I don't take cases to trial unless I know they are good cases, and smart people are easier for me to talk to.
In this case, I think JB and CM will not want smart people, because smart people might understand the forensic evidence...
Yes, that would still be a potential mitigating factor. But really almost anything can be a mitigating factor. It can get very silly. E.g., the defendant's karate coach from high school comes in and says, oh, he was very disciplined and always worried about not hurting anyone.
They can plead the 5th if they are asked about something they could be prosecuted for, yes. I suppose the State could also grant them immunity to thwart that plan, but then there's the risk that they will admit to the alleged crimes. I truly don't think that CA or GA will take the 5th or admit to any such crimes. I think that they are probably getting pretty mad after AF's little list of mitigating factors came out the other day.
Heck if I know. I haven't read the evening thread yet. Hopefully someone will see this post and answer for you.
Well, obviously Casey can appeal on lots of other issues without exercising all strikes. But she can't object to the makeup of the jury without using her strikes.
On the other hand, I'm not really understanding the way HHJP has this set up. If the parties don't get a chance to strike after seeing the WHOLE panel of qualified jurors, I don't think the appellate court will blame JB for "saving" some strikes for later batches of jurors, because how could he know if the next batch might be worse?
It sounds like the State challenged for cause, the judge said no, the State then tried to use a peremptory challenge, the defense said they thought the State might be using the challenge because the potential juror was black, the State said WHAT?? NO, we are challenging her because she says she can't judge people based on the testimony of other people, then the judge said, other jurors said the same thing and you didn't strike them so I'm finding that you are trying to strike her because she's black...strike denied.
:waitasec:
