SA peremptory challenge denied

[tlcya]

This was Ashton's fault. He failed to ask hardly any questions of her and immediately used a peremptory rather than even trying to have her excused for cause first. I don't blame the judge. He needs to make sure there are no issues for appeal. He asked JA for his reasoning and it was weak, IMO. He did not give solid, well though out reasons. And once the judge issues a ruling, there is no further discussion allowed.

HHJP kind of, almost, had no choice but JA caused that. Had he brought up that he did not use strikes on other black potential jurors, maybe he would have gotten somewhere but he really needed to examine her in greater depth so he could have a basis for asking that she be excused for cause first.

And then, he could have used his peremptory and could have shown more easily that he was not using it based on race had JB made such an objection.

But the fact that JA seemed to shoot from the hip with no planning and used his peremptory in a much too cocky manner really forced the court's hand, IMO.

JA has tons of experience so I don't know what the heck happened here. I have noticed that he can get riled up at times and allows himself to be baited by JB so maybe that's the problem.

This case means a lot to the state and they really want justice for Caylee. JB's arrogant, sneering, blundering, smug and smarmy attitude has fired them up even further and made them all the more committed. But maybe it's also caused JA to lose his cool a bit. He needs to get it under control. I'm sure he's sick with mortification tonight. It was a bad mistake, IMO.

Great post!

Especially the BBM portion. I was kind of surprised by this too.

 

[crucibelle]

In the lawyer thread, AZlawyer has given her take on what happened.. it's the same as what I thought and tried to explain here, but she worded it much, much better than I did.. lol. It's worth a look. I would copy + paste what she said, but I don't think she'd appreciate that.

 

[Amster]

The lady had no idea what JB was talking about when he asked about forensic evidence. So...he said, DNA....she still had no clue.

If HHJP wants every PJ questioned for 4 hours in order to stay "race neutral", than by gosh, JA should do just that!! IMO, what happened today...with the implied accusation of racism toward JA was disgusting.

 

[BeanE]

It's not about the number of times she said she didn't understand, it's a matter of weighing the entirety of her answers. She is clearly not a critical thinker and would not be good when following the evidence in this trial.

I see her differently. I also have never seen a jury comprised of critical thinkers. Nevertheless, they usually manage to, collectively, do a pretty good job.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The lady had no idea what JB was talking about when he asked about forensic evidence. So...he said, DNA....she still had no clue.

If HHJP wants every PJ questioned for 4 hours in order to stay "race neutral", than by gosh, JA should do just that!! IMO, what happened today...with the implied accusation of racism toward JA was disgusting.

I agree - throwing racism into it is absurd and defies logic. JA is trying to keep the process going, unlike Baez and his laughing, joking, repetitions, observations, etc.

 

[cluciano63]

I really think what happened is that it's the end of the week, after a series of very long days, and the prosecution was just plain tired, and didn't think it through enough.

The only concern I share with the prosecution is what the juror said about not wanting to take people's word. Some of the evidence presented will be just that - people's word about what they saw, heard, experienced, their opinions based on those things, etc. That may have been better to hone in on and emphasize.

I was waiting for someone to explain that this is a circumstantial case, primarily, but I guess they did not want to go there. Not the time to explain that really and would have probably confused the issue more, but I was half expecting it.

 

[tlcya]

Wellspoke BeanE

 

[gitana1]

A few people have said they didn't see where HHJP said something about race.

RAW VIDEO: Day 5 Of Casey Anthony Jury Selection Pt.13
http://www.wftv.com/video/27889247/index.html

11:03 Cheney Mason says "Batson inquiry" and then he says "We want a race neutral reason. Let the record reflect that the juror is a black female."

Jeff Ashton says "First answer out of her mouth." He goes on to explain that it was "her opinions about judging others". That she doesn't like "judging other people on what someone says".

Then Ashton complains, and the judge explains further, and cites a Florida supreme court decision, and then goes into even more detail. This is all about comparisons of this juror to other jurors.

HHJP then says pursuant to Melbourne (the supreme court decision), and considering that 4 hours were spent on the first juror, and only a short while with this juror, "the court doesn't find that to be a race neutral reason".

To me, listening to all his explanations, and his comparisons of this juror to others under the same circumstances, and going back and reviewing those jurors, I see what he means. If the 3 reasons given by Ashton were valid for his strike on this juror, then there are definitely other jurors he should also have objected to and struck. It does leave a question as to why he struck this one and not the others with the same circumstances.

Good post.

I completely disagree with these remarks in several posts that the juror is stupid, unable to understand simple questions, etc, etc, etc. I don't know where that's coming from. In her entire testimony, she only once said she didn't understand. Once.

I saw no evidence of stupidity or inability to understand basic concepts whatsoever.

It was the cadence, the rhythm, the way she responded. I see it not as "stupid" but more limited in her intellectual capacities, her critical thinking skills. She did not seem bright at all, poor thing, but I think age and lack of life experience may have added to that. She seemed to have a very small world, few interests, few activities that would challenge the mind. What can i say? Listening to her and based on my experience I thought, "Oh boy. This would be a nightmare." She sounded more like a child trying hard to please and changing her answers to make everyone happy.

It's not about the number of times she said she didn't understand, it's a matter of weighing the entirety of her answers. She is clearly not a critical thinker and would not be good when following the evidence in this trial.

Exactly. i cannot see her beginning to comprehend half of what will be presented and i can see her easily swayed by impressions based not on logic but on who seems nice, etc.

I will say this again and hopefully no more but people have a very hard time believing a mother could hurt her child. Especially a nice, young mom who is in happy photos with her baby. The defense will show those and will show the video of her with Caylee. This will further sway people who have a hard time believing a cute, young gal could hurt her child.

Right here we had quite a few people who believed steadfastly in casey's innocence. Intelligent people who knew all the facts including those jurors are unlikely to ever hear. We still have many people who believe it had to have been an accident. Now think about this lady. She's the type, IMO, who would get scammed because the salesman was so nice or give all her money to the televangelist because he said those who give money to Jesus will never have to worry about poverty.

I also think she is very indecisive. She earlier said she didn't think she could serve because she doesn't like to judge people, saying something about church, IIRC (misunderstanding Christianity as precluding courts of law and juries). She changed her mind during questioning and waffled on the death penalty, both of which pose problems for the state.

Listen, I can't say that she is 100% going to screw this case up but I can say that I believe she is a huge risk to a finding of guilt. There was a reason the state was so perturbed by her that they panicked and used a peremptory when they should not have and there was a reason the defense wanted her so badly that they challenged the peremptory based on Batson. And it had nothing to do with her race, IMO. Believe them, not me.

 

[Leila]

You are correct. She did say that. But then the judge 'walked her through' the correct responses and rehabilitated her. But Ashton did not feel that the change was sincere, and I agree with him. But unfortunately he did not question her enough to bring that out. I think he was trying to save time and trying not to confront her too strongly, which is good, since she may now be in the jury box.

Thanks! I was fairly sure that she stated "her religion would not allow her to stand in judgement of another person."

When this whole thing happened today, it happened quickly, prior to the extensive questioning that other PJs had been put through. At the time I felt that JA was acting on this because he felt that enough had been established that indicated this woman's belief in regards to judging someone should be the basis for excusing her. He didn't see CM's "race card" coming. It took him completely by surprise!

JA should have followed through with the questioning and perhaps if he had done so, he would have found something that would have further justified having the woman excused for cause. In JA's defense, he was only trying to shorten the process by not taking the time for further questioning.

So, we're left with a juror we know nothing about. But the DT knows nothing either. Is she married, single, divorced, widowed, children or grandchildren, employed and if so where? We only know that she doesn't have any friends and likes to play games on the computer. We know nothing about her background.

The thought occurred to me that this could backfire on the DT if questioning in round 3 reveals something that would be detrimental to the defense.

 

[AZlawyer]

In the lawyer thread, AZlawyer has given her take on what happened.. it's the same as what I thought and tried to explain here, but she worded it much, much better than I did.. lol. It's worth a look. I would copy + paste what she said, but I don't think she'd appreciate that.

You guys are always free to move my stuff around lol. Here's what I said:

OMG I just heard about this one. I have been in court almost all afternoon and was trying to catch up.

Because the word "Batson" was (I understand) used, it sounds like the SA actually used one of its peremptory challenges ("free strikes" but they can't be used to strike someone based on race). The defense suggested that the challenge might have been based on race, at which point the State had to explain the REAL reason, and HHJP apparently made a decision that the "real" reason couldn't have been the real reason because the State wasn't striking EVERYONE who answered in a similar fashion.

I thought this decision was terrible, based on what I've read in the jury selection threads so far. The lady did NOT answer just like everyone else, and if you only have 10 strikes you have to make certain judgment calls about subtle differences in the answers. I suppose JA should have said, "Your honor, we were making a distinction between her and juror #---- because she hesitated longer and looked doubtful before answering the question" or something like that.

I think this juror could easily be the one to say "reasonable doubt" and cause a hung jury. I am very worried now.

 

[tlcya]

I have faith. The jury of peers will work. She will be found guilty. I still am confident in his Honor. I think we will be okay.

 

[AZlawyer]

Good post.



It was the cadence, the rhythm, the way she responded. I see it not as "stupid" but more limited in her intellectual capacities, her critical thinking skills. She did not seem bright at all, poor thing, but I think age and lack of life experience may have added to that. She seemed to have a very small world, few interests, few activities that would challenge the mind. What can i say? Listening to her and based on my experience I thought, "Oh boy. This would be a nightmare." She sounded more like a child trying hard to please and changing her answers to make everyone happy.



Exactly. i cannot see her beginning to comprehend half of what will be presented and i can see her easily swayed by impressions based not on logic but on who seems nice, etc.

I will say this again and hopefully no more but people have a very hard time believing a mother could hurt her child. Especially a nice, young mom who is in happy photos with her baby. The defense will show those and will show the video of her with Caylee. This will further sway people who have a hard time believing a cute, young gal could hurt her child.

Right here we had quite a few people who believed steadfastly in casey's innocence. Intelligent people who knew all the facts including those jurors are unlikely to ever hear. We still have many people who believe it had to have been an accident. Now think about this lady. She's the type, IMO, who would get scammed because the salesman was so nice or give all her money to the televangelist because he said those who give money to Jesus will never have to worry about poverty.

I also think she is very indecisive. She earlier said she didn't think she could serve because she doesn't like to judge people, saying something about church, IIRC (misunderstanding Christianity as precluding courts of law and juries). She changed her mind during questioning and waffled on the death penalty, both of which pose problems for the state.

Listen, I can't say that she is 100% going to screw this case up but I can say that I believe she is a huge risk to a finding of guilt. There was a reason the state was so perturbed by her that they panicked and used a peremptory when they should not have and there was a reason the defense wanted her so badly that they challenged the peremptory based on Batson. And it had nothing to do with her race, IMO. Believe them, not me.

I agree. If you think she would not have been good for the defense, ask yourself why CM wants her on his jury so badly.

 

[crucibelle]

Thanks AZ!! This is actually what I was referring to:

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.

 

[katydid23]

I see her differently. I also have never seen a jury comprised of critical thinkers. Nevertheless, they usually manage to, collectively, do a pretty good job.

Critical thinkers tend to get cut by the preemptive strikes. Same with those who follow the news, or use the internet often. In spite of that, they do tend to collectively agree upon a verdict.

I think this woman will bring a certain depth of moral values to the table. I think she is a deeply religious woman with strong standards of right and wrong. And, imo, she will see what is wrong here.

 

[AZlawyer]

You guys have 10 pages here and I just popped in, so someone's probably said this already, but I would be MORTIFIED if a black judge actually accepted the argument that I had exercised a peremptory challenge against a black juror for a racist reason.

 

[katydid23]

You guys have 10 pages here and I just popped in, so someone's probably said this already, but I would be MORTIFIED if a black judge actually accepted the argument that I had exercised a peremptory challenge against a black juror for a racist reason.

I was wondering about that too. Is Ashton going to be in an awkward position or have a weird relationship with the judge for awhile now? It is certainly uncomfortable if JP accepts that the state was just being racist. Plays out GREAT for Baez because that is his mantra. Grrrrrrrrrr...

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I don't fully understand why both the state and defense performed such an abbreviated questioning period of this PJ. Neither asked the general questions of her general background that they usually do as their last round. AF didn't even get up to give her monologue (which has confused several of the PJs).
Maybe the state was so turned off by her indecisiveness about being able to judge others and her hesitancy on the dp issue that they decided it wasn't productive to waste any more time in questioning her. And perhaps the defense was so pleased with her hesitancy in these areas that they were afraid to ask her any more questions that might further highlight her confusion. I think both the defense and state should have put more effort into her questioning.
What is painful for me is that I don't believe that either the state or HHJP is racist but that the defense is ~ and they used this Batson ruling to support them, following the letter of the law but not necessarily the intent.
But, ya know, it's supposed to be a jury of her peers. Not all caucasians, not all brains, not all emotions, not all "professionals" (whatever that is?), not all minorities, not all spiritualist, not all candidates vying to be the lead jurist, not all introverts, etc, etc. We can and should want a slice of all lives ~ that's what our peers are. And, like it or not, I think that's what we're getting. :twocents:

 

[technicalconfusion]

Thank you. I am not getting how people are saying she is not intelligent either. Some of the questions were phrased in a way to make a person's head spin and she may have wanted one or two repeated, but that is all I heard, other than some hesitation in her feelings, not in her ability to process.

Listening this week, I've had a couple of my own whut?? moments when one of the lawyers is asking a question. I think they tend to forget that these folks are average folks, some without college degrees, and the lawyers, instead of keeping it simple, and to the point, get into a long drawn out question that could have been asked in a simpler way. It would go faster if the lawyers would get into a KISS mode.

But death is different I guess.

 

[Amil]

Don't worry, she'll be in the jury room with a behavior counselor or crisis nurse, right?

 

[RR0004]

This was Ashton's fault. He failed to ask hardly any questions of her and immediately used a peremptory rather than even trying to have her excused for cause first. I don't blame the judge. He needs to make sure there are no issues for appeal. He asked JA for his reasoning and it was weak, IMO. He did not give solid, well though out reasons. And once the judge issues a ruling, there is no further discussion allowed.

HHJP kind of, almost, had no choice but JA caused that. Had he brought up that he did not use strikes on other black potential jurors, maybe he would have gotten somewhere but he really needed to examine her in greater depth so he could have a basis for asking that she be excused for cause first.

And then, he could have used his peremptory and could have shown more easily that he was not using it based on race had JB made such an objection.

But the fact that JA seemed to shoot from the hip with no planning and used his peremptory in a much too cocky manner really forced the court's hand, IMO.

JA has tons of experience so I don't know what the heck happened here. I have noticed that he can get riled up at times and allows himself to be baited by JB so maybe that's the problem.

This case means a lot to the state and they really want justice for Caylee. JB's arrogant, sneering, blundering, smug and smarmy attitude has fired them up even further and made them all the more committed. But maybe it's also caused JA to lose his cool a bit. He needs to get it under control. I'm sure he's sick with mortification tonight. It was a bad mistake, IMO.

I got the impression that JA flat out didn't believe her when she said she'd be able to "judge" someone. We can't forget that this was the 2nd time that she went before the Court. I also got the impression that she was having difficulty understanding the proceedings and felt at the time that the judge led her in many of her responses.