SA peremptory challenge denied

[Turnadot]

Very good discussion in this thread. I feel a bit calmer about it. I just want Caylee to get justice, and it angers me to think she might have to wait, or that her killer may actually go free.

 

[Whisperer]

I am confused. I thought the panel had to be death-qualified. Are they allowing this woman who is clearly against DP remain?

 

[Rallihanna]

I don't understand why there is a round 3 if some jurors get in already after round 2.

 

[uklaw]

I am confused. I thought the panel had to be death-qualified. Are they allowing this woman who is clearly against DP remain?

She can be opposed to the DP (it would be grossly unfair if all people opposed to the DP were excluded). However, she must be capable of rendering a verdict according to the law and a sentence of death if it is warranted even if this involves her putting aside her own personal convictions.

 

[Whisperer]

One of the reasons JB wants Hispanics on the panel is that many are Catholic. Practicing Catholics are notorius for being against the DP. I still don't get it.

 

[Rallihanna]

Not a Catholic here... but from a church that historically would say no to the DP. However, that's not how I feel. And now how I would view this case.

 

[Whisperer]

She can be opposed to the DP (it would be grossly unfair if all people opposed to the DP were excluded). However, she must be capable of rendering a verdict according to the law and a sentence of death if it is warranted even if this involves her putting aside her own personal convictions.

With respect, why would it be unfair to exclude people who don't believe in the DP? If this is a death penalty case, they should have all jurors who are willing to give that verdict.

 

[Whisperer]

Not a Catholic here... but from a church that historically would say no to the DP. However, that's not how I feel. And now how I would view this case.

I am Catholic and am for the death penalty. However, I am not a practicing Catholic..and they overwhelmingly are against the DP. I really think that is where JB is going.

But am to assume now that this is NOT going to be a death-qualified panel.?

 

[gibby207]

I am not sure here. At first, I thought like you. However, with time my opinion has shifted. This is a bit of a double edged sword for both sides here. She may not be initially that amenable to the Prosecution case as she is to the Defense case because of her issues.

However, she also probably isn't that sociable and she comes accross as the person who would succumb to pressure more easily than most. So if the rest of the jury are convinced that ICA is guilty this juror is less likely to be a hold out juror than others who might believe the Defendant is not guilty when the rest of the jury think she is guilty.

Respectfully snipped.

I tend to agree. I think, for some reason, the time was cut shorter than usual for her and there wasn't enough info for me to make a decision about her intellect. I think she was fairly nervous sitting there in front of the judge and answering all these questions. I'm and hoping that on the jury of her peers she will listen intently and take notes and learn things and ask questions and bounce ideas when the time comes. However. I also think she probably won't make it that long and will ask to leave... Just MOO. I don't think this interests her. I don't think it's intellect because I consider myself a smart person, but I don't know law-ese much (though learn quick) lol She might too. annnddd.. isn't she a grandma?!!!!

I also think she wants off but is too polite to say it. Wants to be "good" and "right."

And I don't understand why people who WANT to be on a jury are "bad." I understand the appeal. I've never been on a jury. I'd personally want a person who WANTS to be there and pays attention than one who was dragged ears first to the thing and doesn't pay attention. lol

Course.............this is all self-soothing right now. Along with my beer.

Everything is added with a big ol' MOO. But. I now have a tincture of worry.

 

[Turnadot]

I have a few lawyer friends I discussed this with earlier tonight. They all agreed it was JA who messed up and not HHJP, in their opinion. Basically they said JA used his peremptory when he shouldn't have and it was a rookie mistake. So I don't know. I just want the trial to go off all right and KC found guilty.

 

[miss plum]

I believe Florida allows for majority verdicts when it comes to sentencing, so having one or two jurors who are against the death penalty will not mean it can't be imposed.

 

[akashana]

One thing about a less sophisticated juror with possibly limited technical comprehension - they may tend to see things as more "black" or "white" without all those mitigating shades of gray the DT is wanting the jurors to see. People with less complicated minds may not follow every nuance or jot and tittle of testimony, but they tend to be salt-of-the-earth folks who are perfectly capable of calling a spade a spade, and know that there is never a set of circumstances where it is ok to place duct tape over the mouth and nose of your two-year-old child and place her in a car trunk. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see that.

 

[Whisperer]

I am not an attorney like you or your partner, of course, but I believe you are correct. She is as firmly planted in the jury box as the twenty year old oak tree outside my window is planted in the ground.

There are no more strikes. I have researched for hours, can find no outs.

This is our first juror, folks.

(respectfully snipped)

I do not understand this jury selection. I have been summoned an awful lot. They each have 10 pre-emps In ca, its 20). I didn't know a judge could overide a Pre-emp challange (at least I have never see that before). Florida is really, really different.

 

[akashana]

One of the reasons JB wants Hispanics on the panel is that many are Catholic. Practicing Catholics are notorius for being against the DP. I still don't get it.

MY BOLD

Not sure if you meant you don't get Baez's line of reasoning on Hispanic Catholic jurors, or that you didn't get the Catholic aversion to the DP at all. If the latter is the case, it is because the Catholic Church is pro-life in all areas: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-DP. The Church holds that all life is sacred to God, an embryo in its cellular stage, a brain-dead accident victim or late-stage cancer patient, a diabolic murderer, and man has no right to interfere with the lifespan of God's creation.

 

[gibby207]

One thing about a less sophisticated juror with possibly limited technical comprehension - they may tend to see things as more "black" or "white" without all those mitigating shades of gray the DT is wanting the jurors to see. People with less complicated minds may not follow every nuance or jot and tittle of testimony, but they tend to be salt-of-the-earth folks who are perfectly capable of calling a spade a spade, and know that there is never a set of circumstances where it is ok to place duct tape over the mouth and nose of your two-year-old child and place her in a car trunk. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see that.

You said it so much better than me. LOL But... I DO see this lady as a benefit to the prosecution tho. I'm more worried about another juror spoken with earlier myself, the counselor. I'm worried she could hang the jury. There is such as thing as "over-thinking."

She may not impose death, but........ I'm not expecting death. Like? Yes. Expect? No.

Gibby = not a Rhodes scholar :rocker:

Gibby = atheist (but say agnostic in certain circles because I AM from the Midwest)

Gibby = doesn't "believe" in death penalty. However, I have issue with serial killers, baby killers, etc. lol I could IMPOSE without being oogy.

Gibby = not necessarily a crime "buff" but do go on WS, mostly because I'm interested in finding the missing. I don't watch CSI... any of them... or all that other stuffs. I watch NG on occasion, never have seen Dr. G. Geraldo? I'd laugh at that one. LOL

Gibby = I have a Facebook account and my current profile pic is Judge Belvin. soooo.... I believe I'd be booted. LOL What am I saying... I'd be booted 1st off when they asked if she was guilty. I can't fake that. LOL

 

[Whisperer]

I don't understand why there is a round 3 if some jurors get in already after round 2.

I've been seated for three weeks and was asked to leave with a pre-empt challange. This was also a murder trial. After they find 20, it would not mean that is the final 20. In Calif. this is the time the Pre-empts are used. State gets rid of people they think are Defense oriented and State does the opposite. The jury selection keeps going and going till ALL pre=empts are used up.

Then one at a time another prospect takes that seat and it starts all over with both sides questioning the replacement to see if they want that juror.

 

[Whisperer]

You said it so much better than me. LOL But... I DO see this lady as a benefit to the prosecution tho. I'm more worried about another juror spoken with earlier myself, the counselor. I'm worried she could hang the jury.

She may not impose death, but........ I'm not expecting death. Like? Yes. Expect? No.

Gibby = not a Rhodes scholar :rocker:

State will usually pre-empt anyone w/psych. Defense LOVES paych people because they can hang up a jury.

 

[Whisperer]

MY BOLD

Not sure if you meant you don't get Baez's line of reasoning on Hispanic Catholic jurors, or that you didn't get the Catholic aversion to the DP at all. If the latter is the case, it is because the Catholic Church is pro-life in all areas: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-DP. The Church holds that all life is sacred to God, an embryo in its cellular stage, a brain-dead accident victim or late-stage cancer patient, a diabolic murderer, and man has no right to interfere with the lifespan of God's creation.

Thank you. I meant I don't get how Florida seats the jury and why they are allowing people who do not believe in the DP to be seated.

It was just explained that is because they don't need a majority vote for DP...still don't like the way Florida does this.

I thought the DP was going to be a slam dunk...now I know it won't because there are people seating there that will NOT vote for the DP. They obviously don't believe in Death=qualifying jurors.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Some thoughts- after much googling :crazy:

This juror has the belief that she shouldn't judge others. This is a verse in Matthew 7:1 'Do not judge others, or you will be judged....'

This scripture is cited by some of the Christian denominations as the reason to refuse jury duty.

I'm Christian, work for a church, and we are paid for jury duty- with no time limit. What's different? This scripture 'Let every person be subject to the governing authorities....' Romans 13:1

Perhaps this juror feels she shouldn't judge random people, but will submit to the 'governing authority' of Judge Perry and the State of Florida Judicial system and do as she is instructed.

jmo

 

[uklaw]

With respect, why would it be unfair to exclude people who don't believe in the DP? If this is a death penalty case, they should have all jurors who are willing to give that verdict.

If it is a DP case then all jurors DO have to be able to render a verdict of death if they feel that is what is required under the law.

However, it does not necesarrily follow that a juror is opposed to the death penalty is not able to render a verdict of death if the facts and law warrant it. If they can put their own personal convictions aside and render a verdict that the law as applied to the facts of the case requires then they can sit on the jury.

Similarly, someone who believes that all murderers should receive the DP can sit on the jury but like those who are opposed to the DP, they have to put those personal views aside and be prepared to render a verdict either way according to the law.

Lastly, why is it unfair to exclude people who don't believe in the DP? Because you unfairly skew the jury against the Defendant by so doing. Statistics suggest that Death Qualified Juries as they are currently picked are more likely to vote guilty. By removing those who are opposed to the DP you skew matters further.

HTH.