SA peremptory challenge denied

[technicalconfusion]

That's true. There are many reasons why someone may not have friends. They may socialize mostly with family, or be unable to leave the house a lot or be shy or whatever.

But hey, you do have friends right here on websleuths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you!

 

[gitana1]

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.

Everyone keeps mentioning a third round of questioning but there should be no more questioning. This was their shot. I believe the last round is just hauling them out one by one and seeing whether the state or defense want to use a peremptory. The state used theirs on this sweet lady but failed so they are done and it is very unlikely that the defense will use one on her since they wanted her so badly. This lady is on the jury from what I can tell.

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

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

For anyone interested in knowing, if you hit respond in another thread to a post you want to transfer, and then copy the quote that comes up in the response box and then go back to the thread you want to post it and hit "post reply" then paste, you should have the quote you want in the new thread.

BTW, AZlawyer, I believe that JA actually failed to challenge based on cause but just jumped in with his peremptory. It all went by quickly but that's what I got.

If you haven't heard her questioning I would love for you to listen to it and tell us what you think of her on this jury.

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

Very funny!


I wanted to relay my experience with peremptories. My law partner is on the ICDA panel here in LA County which means he does conflict public defense cases. If there are multiple defendants, for example, my partner will take one and the public defender will take another.

Anyhow, he has had quite a few cases where his client is black. And he watches as one by one, the DA's strikes are used to get rid of every black potential juror. He challenges based on Batson and has NEVER succeeded. Thus, I was very shocked by this ruling.

 

[cuppy199]

Even though Im alittle dissapointed that the judge let them use the race card. Im even more confused why the DT is pushing the race card so hard anyway. Im not a lawyer but it would seem to me that they would have better luck having more whites on the jury because ICA is white:waitasec: Any way I wouldn't worry to much I think this is gonna come back and bite the DT in the butt. Im not so sure she will be the one to cause a hung jury she just might be ICA worse nightmare.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

We all think this is pretty important. Have I missed all the headline press coverage about it?

 

[AZlawyer]

Even though Im alittle dissapointed that the judge let them use the race card. Im even more confused why the DT is pushing the race card so hard anyway. Im not a lawyer but it would seem to me that they would have better luck having more whites on the jury because ICA is white:waitasec: Any way I wouldn't worry to much I think this is gonna come back and bite the DT in the butt. Im not so sure she will be the one to cause a hung jury she just might be ICA worse nightmare.

The reason the defense wants black jurors is because they are RACIST (the irony is rich) and think all black people are the same, i.e., that they favor defendants.

 

[RR0004]

We all think this is pretty important. Have I missed all the headline press coverage about it?

Could be they are very slow on the uptake.

 

[gitana1]

Even though Im alittle dissapointed that the judge let them use the race card. Im even more confused why the DT is pushing the race card so hard anyway. Im not a lawyer but it would seem to me that they would have better luck having more whites on the jury because ICA is white:waitasec: Any way I wouldn't worry to much I think this is gonna come back and bite the DT in the butt. Im not so sure she will be the one to cause a hung jury she just might be ICA worse nightmare.

I don't think it had a thing to do with race on the part of either the defense or the state. The defense wanted her so they tried a Batson challenge and to everyone's surprise, they succeeded.

IMO, her race does not pose an issue either way. It's her indecisiveness, distaste about judging others and her apparent (at least to me) lack of critical thinking skills.

We all think this is pretty important. Have I missed all the headline press coverage about it?

Well, wftv mentioned it but not at all in depth. They were more concerned with the guy with the DUI. They also don't seem to get that she is seated.

This was discussed quite a bit on In sessions as it happened and I am sure it will be further discussed tomorrow, or mentioned in some news outlet.

 

[cuppy199]

The reason the defense wants black jurors is because they are RACIST (the irony is rich) and think all black people are the same, i.e., that they favor defendants.

Yea thats the part I think is gonna come back and bite the DT in the butt :crazy:

 

[gitana1]

The reason the defense wants black jurors is because they are RACIST (the irony is rich) and think all black people are the same, i.e., that they favor defendants.

Well, I think they whined about the jury pool not being diverse enough because they were desperate to get out of conservative Pinellas and because they want to delay at all costs as the further away from the crime they get, they think the less of a sting the murder will have.

Also, in the case of this juror, i think they just liked her answers, her demeanor, etc.

But overall, yes, they probably do have the racist assumption that black people will tend to be more pro defense than others. They are unusual people. Minorities will not tend to feel sympathetic to casey or the defense's cause simply because they are black.

 

[katydid23]

Well, I think they whined about the jury pool not being diverse enough because they were desperate to get out of conservative Pinellas and because they want to delay at all costs as the further away from the crime they get, they think the less of a sting the murder will have.

Also, in the case of this juror, i think they just liked her answers, her demeanor, etc.

But overall, yes, they probably do have the racist assumption that black people will tend to be more pro defense than others. They are unusual people. Minorities will not tend to feel sympathetic to casey or the defense's cause simply because they are black.

I think they are assuming that black jurors will accept their main defense strategy, which is the ' cops lied and messed up and jumped to conclusions.'

 

[Whisperer]

The biggest problem I see is that this particular woman is going to stand on her convictins. I also think she will see "Reasonable Doubt" as "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt". It is my opinion and strong belief that many, many jurors don't know the difference.

OJ's jury was like that. Attorneys should spend a LOT OF TIME on this particular issue and they don't. This is where the cases are lost. This is the part where education and the ability to abstract think comes in. I am willing to bet there are several if not more that will be on this jury that do not know the difference....or get confused. They think if they have a doubt they can't vote guilty. The concept is too difficult for many to absorb.

This is sooo frustrating as I don't see the State explaining it. The defense will always be happy that jurors may not get it and they certainly are not going to rock that boat.

 

[miss plum]

I'm hoping that since this lady was hesitant and did change her answers upon further reflection, she will not be the type of stubborn, religious ('only God may judge us') holdout juror that the defense would love to have in there.

 

[Whisperer]

I hope the State doesn't get bogged down with technical issues because this is not going to work. Keep it simple and explain, explain "Reasonable Doubt". I think though that it is difficult to explain..hopefully the foreman will be knowlegeble.

 

[technicalconfusion]

That surprises me..... Because I've always admired you here and thought you prolly had many, many friends. You know... my mom doesn't have any friends either. I analyze that to she was an only child, a bit spoiled, had mommy issues... and she's got an opinion. You WILL hear it. LOL I actually love that about people because I don't do passive-aggression well. I love my mom, and my friends love my mom, but she's not overly.... motherly or friendly, you know? She's got huge walls. Lotsa pain there.

Thank you. I love it when I have an impact on someone.

I have had many friends over the years - but they've moved off, died or we lost touch. The good ones. I've also had tons of acquaintances. I am outgoing - but I'm a loner. I'm comfortable with it. I come out of my cave once in a while and check out the weather, lol.

I can talk to anyone (which used to scare the bejeezus out of my parents growing up, lol), and strangers will find me out of the blue and tell me their life stories.

I'm a bit wallsy myself where I have a lot of friends whom love ME because I walk around the jokester and listen to their problems but who actually know very little of me, make sense? People pleasin'.... that's what I'm about. BUT. Getting better as I get old.

Makes perfect sense.

wow. That was prolly TMI and I "harshed the buzz" but I just wanted to throw out there I've always loved your posts and miss your f'd up horsie. LOL Please consider me a friend................... even if you don't want me. HAHAHAHA :innocent:

Thank you again. The horse is still around somewhere.

 

[Whisperer]

You can have doubts and vote "Guilty". Some jurors don't see it that way. IMO, she is one of those that don't see it like that. I hope it is explained to those that don't know. I think jurors just shake their heads and say they understand the concept. They think they would appear stupid if they admitted they didn't know. Not So..

 

[Whisperer]

I just listened to the tape, this woman sounds strong to me. She definitely preferred JB over JA. Don't know how that will play out. I think she wants on the jury...and may be looking forward to going to Orlando and being in a hotel. If she is a loner, she will very much like that part.

 

[miss plum]

The biggest problem I see is that this particular woman is going to stand on her convictins. I also think she will see "Reasonable Doubt" as "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt". It is my opinion and strong belief that many, many jurors don't know the difference.

OJ's jury was like that. Attorneys should spend a LOT OF TIME on this particular issue and they don't. This is where the cases are lost. This is the part where education and the ability to abstract think comes in. I am willing to bet there are several if not more that will be on this jury that do not know the difference....or get confused. They think if they have a doubt they can't vote guilty. The concept is too difficult for many to absorb.

This is sooo frustrating as I don't see the State explaining it. The defense will always be happy that jurors may not get it and they certainly are not going to rock that boat.

OJ's jurors, whose decision was bitterly disappointing to me, were drawn from a community that had suffered genuine historical injustices at the hands of LAPD, and the defense were able to draw upon those to persuade them the cops had planted evidence to frame him. I can't resent that jury for how they reached their verdict; there was a lot of sad, terrible baggage in that courtroom, and a clever defense team who knew how to work it.

I don't see how the manipulations that worked on that particular jury will apply to KC and her jury. She can't be portrayed as a successful black man who has overcome hardship and made something of himself who racist cops might want to diminish, she is a young pretty girl who had many opportunities and a wealth of squandered social capital.

And she is not going to appear charming or innocent to anyone who has sat in a room with her for eight weeks. I can hardly stand to look at her already, it's like looking at a shed snakeskin, there is nothing there.

 

[doogiesgirl]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27889247/index.html

If we are talking about the above juror I don't see a problem with her. She seems like she doesn't want to judge someone on gossip which is not what will be presented in court. Also she seems to me to just want to be a conscientious juror, to weigh both sides and go with what her gut tells her is the right decision. I think she will be fine. Our system needs people who are open minded b/c abuses of power do happen (not in this case, but they happen). I'm ok with her.

:cow:

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Everyone should remember, ICA blamed a biracial imaginanny....don't you think this might irritate jurors of that same persuasion??? Just as SSmith blamed an african american man who carjacked her and took her children...the community got very angry...so I don't think this is really the best move for the defense of ICA...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[spyhouston]

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.

Thanks, I needed that! I woke up worried this morning. I really believe JA just made a mistake and tried to hurry at the end of the day. But in the long run of the trial, maybe this mistake will help him stay calm. I always relax a little when LDB is in charge, and tense up a little when JA is. But based on everything I know so far, I truly believe his heart is in the right place. JA and I both just need to take a deep breath.