Author Topic: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013  (Read 11418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2013, 11:04:55 AM »
I thought peremptory means you don't have to give a reason.

Normally not. But courts have carved out an exception to prevent peremptory challenges being used for racial discrimination.

I suggest reading, or re-reading, what I just posted, carefully.

Quote
I think the comment on the WSJ board referred to challenges for cause and the implication was that race is an allowable cause for defense but not prosecutors.

I don't have a direct cite for that. But if the courts have such a horror of racial discrimination that they have made an exception in the peremptory challenge rules, I think it stands to reason that race, alone, is never 'cause' for dismissing a juror.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2013, 11:05:23 AM »
Why doesn't Batson cover challenges for cause?  Does it just assume that no judge in this day and age would excuse a juror on account of race?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #47 on: June 10, 2013, 11:13:02 AM »
Why doesn't Batson cover challenges for cause?  Does it just assume that no judge in this day and age would excuse a juror on account of race?

Or maybe that is, in fact, the case, and no such issue has come before the appellate courts since way back in the 19th Century, just after the 14th Amendment was passed. Even in those days, I think exclusion of black jurors would have needed a non-racial pretext.

As the Romans said, 'Whoever has a mind to do mischief, will always find a pretext.'

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #48 on: June 10, 2013, 11:49:49 AM »
The judge had the parties separate the questionnaires according to question # 4. i think that's a biographical question (the first questions always are) and is probably about residency in Florida or the county, to eliminate at the outset jurors who are not legally eligible  to serve.

I doubt there will be any voir dire today on the case . Before the judge gets to that I think she will deal with people who assert they are entitled to be excused.

Quote
You must be a U.S. citizen at least 18 years of age, a resident of the State of Florida and Seminole County, and possess a license or identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

You may be excused for the following reasons:

    You are an expectant mother or a parent who is not employed full time and have custody of a child under six years of age.
    You are 70 years of age or older.
    You are a full time federal, state, or local law enforcement officer or investigative personnel for these entities.
    You care for persons who, because of mental illness, mental retardation, senility, or physical or mental incapacity, are incapable of caring for themselves.
    You are a practicing attorney or physician, or have a physical infirmity.
    You may be excused upon a showing of hardship, extreme inconvenience, or public necessity.

You will be excused for the following reasons:

    You have served as a juror in Seminole County one year immediately proceeding the date of your summons.
    You are currently under prosecution for any crime.
    You are a convicted felon and have not had your civil rights restored.
    You serve as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, clerk of court, or judge

Added: Apparently they are doing voir dire on pretrial publicity but not other areas.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 01:23:05 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2013, 12:01:50 PM »
If I were one of the candidates, I would take the first opportunity to volunteer that I have followed the case too closely. How would that play?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #50 on: June 10, 2013, 12:14:19 PM »
If I were one of the candidates, I would take the first opportunity to volunteer that I have followed the case too closely. How would that play?

You don't "volunteer" anything.  The court is not your friend.  You answer questions as they are put, and follow orders.  You do not opine as what constitutes following "too close."  At some point, if the court thinks you are too informed, you will be removed from jury duty.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #51 on: June 10, 2013, 12:43:30 PM »
BDLR seems to me to be better at relating to jurors than at anything else I've seen him do.

O'Mara is good too. BDLR is jovial, O'Mara is sensitive.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #52 on: June 10, 2013, 01:25:04 PM »
Have they already excused the people who had excuses not to serve?  I wonder if they agreed on those before today's hearing and they were excused before coming to court. Shouldn't there be a public record of how many jurors were excused before today and the grounds?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #53 on: June 10, 2013, 01:33:29 PM »
Have they already excused the people who had excuses not to serve?  I wonder if they agreed on those before today's hearing and they were excused before coming to court. Shouldn't there be a public record of how many jurors were excused before today and the grounds?

I think some have been excused, at least that one who said she had classes, so some hardship would be involved.  I would expect there were others.  Nelson said that another judge was doing some prescreening.  That might have picked up citizenship, ID, and age, pregnancy, young children excuses too.  I'm sure there will be a public record.  The clerk may have a count already, and be willing to give at least an estimate to the press.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #54 on: June 10, 2013, 07:58:22 PM »
I'm thinking the pre-screener may have asked every question that doesn't call for knowledge of the particular case. People who admit that they have formed opinions that they don't feel they can set aside, may be getting eliminated at that stage.

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #55 on: June 10, 2013, 08:26:11 PM »
I'll keep looking around myself for these answers, I'm not trying to bother anyone for them, they are just my thoughts, just frustrated and kind of ranty.

Does anyone have anything solid on the numbers and process? This whole thing seems messy and unorganized to me like they are just winging it for the first time or something. I mean a whole day and they talked to four jurors, is that typical? Anyway, regarding the numbers, I can't recall how many were to be looked at for this case. Didn't the judge say a long time ago she wanted to look at 500? And they got 100 questionnaires today? Are they going to question every single one of those 100 or is there an elimination round before they get to questioning them. Then we got the 21 number. Are they still going to question 17 for the media exposure thing then get to the 21? After they do the the 21 round do they choose from those 21 if they want anyone then eliminate again? So let's say after this round of 21 comes and goes and no one remains they start the process over with the remaining 79? And let's say they only get a couple out of that then they move onto the next 100? Then once 10 are agreed on at any point the process is over? Why are they sidebarring everything? Why are they not stating why a juror has been eliminated? Why do they waste everyone's time sifting through questionnaires? I mean shouldn't they do that on their own time? Then come back to court when they're ready?

Oh, I don't believe any of these people that say they haven't formed some opinion on the case. They are clearly just answering what they think they ought to answer, such is the human beast I suppose.

I have formed hundreds of opinions and I think George is innocent. That's what I would say and if they asked me if I could set everything aside and just consider what they say in court I would tell them they clearly no nothing of human nature and the brain, of course I can't set it all aside. Could I find George guilty? Sure, if Bernie could show me something I haven't seen.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 08:31:00 PM by DiwataMan »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #56 on: June 10, 2013, 09:12:33 PM »
Apparently they are doing voir dire on pretrial publicity but not other areas.

I heard Nelson say something to that effect.

I also recall West asking one of the potential jurors several questions that related to hardship.

ETA: Maybe Nelson let that pass because the state didn't object?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #57 on: June 10, 2013, 09:16:39 PM »
I notice there seems to be some dissatisfaction here with the way jury selection is going in this case.  Would you prefer the British method?
Quote
The people summonsed will attend in the Court building. A jury consists of 12 people, but because of the requirement that they are chosen at random a group of more than 12 people will be brought into Court to form the ‘jury in waiting’. Their names will be written on a piece of card and the court clerk will shuffle their names before reading them out one by one.

As their names are called out the people will go into the jury box. When there are 12 people there, then the jury is ready to go.

The remaining potential jurors will wait in case there are any problems. If the jurors know the defendant, or anyone involved in the case, then obviously they cannot be a juror in that case.
Peremptory challenges were abolished by the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.  The proof that what goes on in the US gives a better quality of justice is .........?

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #58 on: June 10, 2013, 09:21:13 PM »
I notice there seems to be some dissatisfaction here with the way jury selection is going in this case.  Would you prefer the British method?Peremptory challenges were abolished by the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.  The proof that what goes on in the US gives a better quality of justice is .........?

Ricky, we've asked you several times not to distract from the case with comments about laws of other countries. Please stay on topic. It's a discussion of today's proceedings in the George Zimmerman case.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2013, 09:30:31 PM »
Jeralyn, are complaints about the process like that of DiwataMan on topic?  If so, what is wrong with discussing potential solutions? 

 

Site Meter
click
tracking