Author Topic: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013  (Read 5228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« on: June 12, 2013, 12:20:01 AM »
This thread is for comments about Day 3 of  jury selection proceedings, June 12, 2013. There is a separate thread for live updating of the proceedings.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2013, 11:44:42 AM »
I'm curious, cboldt's new post in the jury selection update section says that an objection was made to West asking if the potential juror had heard anything about racial protests.

Why is that out of line?


Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2013, 12:59:24 PM »
If I have this right another judge is going over the initial questionnaire and deciding who to move forward in the process?  Hardships, etc. are eliminated at that time.  Do we know who the other judge is?  ((If this is the case))

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2013, 01:29:27 PM »
Judge Nelson mentioned the name. I think it was a male, but I'm not positive. Not sure if it was a county court judge or district court judge. I didn't recognize the name.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2013, 02:12:47 PM »
I'm curious, cboldt's new post in the jury selection update section says that an objection was made to West asking if the potential juror had heard anything about racial protests.

Why is that out of line?

Supposedly because it was leading.

Here's the relevant part of the post.

West asks if the prospect is aware of reports of protests, objection, sustained.  Questions to not be predicated with an observation (i.e., no leading questions), e.g., did you hear or read of protests is now an off limit question.  The back and forth between lawyers and judge confuses the prospect.  West asks if the prospect has heard anything about racial motivation.  Objection - sidebar.   (Getting rid of leading questions will crimp Bernardo's style). 

As Cboldt alluded to, both sides have been asking these kinds of questions. Asking if a candidate has seen pictures of GZ or TM suggests that such pictures have been in the media, in the same way that asking about coverage of protests suggests that there has been such coverage.

Of course, in strict logic, asking 'have you seen such a thing as X?' doesn't imply any such things exist. And it seems to me that exploring media exposure could get very time-consuming, if they have to wait for the candidates to volunteer everything they want to talk about.

I think the question about 'racial motivation' was separate from the one about protests. I think what West was getting at was GZ having racial motivation in the incident, rather than the protests being racially motivated.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2013, 04:11:13 PM »
Supposedly because it was leading.

Here's the relevant part of the post.

As Cboldt alluded to, both sides have been asking these kinds of questions. Asking if a candidate has seen pictures of GZ or TM suggests that such pictures have been in the media, in the same way that asking about coverage of protests suggests that there has been such coverage.

Of course, in strict logic, asking 'have you seen such a thing as X?' doesn't imply any such things exist. And it seems to me that exploring media exposure could get very time-consuming, if they have to wait for the candidates to volunteer everything they want to talk about.

I think the question about 'racial motivation' was separate from the one about protests. I think what West was getting at was GZ having racial motivation in the incident, rather than the protests being racially motivated.

Thanks. I got that it was supposedly leading. It just didn't make much sense because both sides have been asking questions like that.


Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2013, 07:58:30 PM »
Sorry I had to remove a thread someone started in "Jurors Passed for Cause" about the removed Facebook Juror. That thread is for the jurors who pass round two and make it to the final pool of 30.

I will make that clearer in the topic description.

I realize we don't really have a board for this kind of topic so I just created a new one for Jury Selection: Other matters. It's basically an open thread for discussion of things not covered by the other boards, like press releases by the families or lawyers during jury selection, dismissals, media coverage, etc.

The dismissed FB juror would ordinarily have gone in live updating of court proceedings but none of us were live-updating at the time so we missed it.

Press conferences given by family members after court are not court proceedings so they shouldn't go in the live updates, which end for the day when court ends.

Learning as I go along, sorry.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 08:15:30 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2013, 08:35:06 PM »


Learning as I go along, sorry.

Doing a really great job though. Appreciate all the effort on your part!


Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2013, 12:11:11 AM »
Daily numbers now including B2:
Exact two-tailed binomial tests of sample so far, assuming Seminole demographics W=66.3%,H=17.1%,B=10.5%

W:  17 of 25: 100% chance of random occurrence (i.e. p-value=1.00)
B:  4 of 25: 33% chance of random occurrence (i.e. p-value=0.33)
H: 3 of 25: 79% chance of random occurrence
Racially, there is no statistically significant difference between the known jurors and the population of Seminole County.

F: 17 of 25: 11% chance  of random occurrence
if we take out jurors B30(better to B30 than be 65), R39(murder is murder), and E7(stealth juror)
F: 17 of 22: 1.7% chance  of random occurrence
Females appear to be preferentially selected in this jury process.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2013, 03:28:25 AM »
The dismissed FB juror would ordinarily have gone in live updating of court proceedings but none of us were live-updating at the time so we missed it.

Press conferences given by family members after court are not court proceedings so they shouldn't go in the live updates, which end for the day when court ends.

Learning as I go along, sorry.

I caught the dismissal of E-7.  It's in the first sentence of a post, where all the following material is about the next prospect.  Edit to add, I see you removed the remark about the dismissed juror, because you though it pertained to the following prospect, or thought others would jump to that conclusion.

My bad on putting the family presser on live proceedings.  As a matter of "time," jury selection and the presser ran together, and my mind was cataloging on present convenience.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 03:32:18 AM by cboldt »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2013, 03:46:11 AM »
In the updates I've mentioned the four reserved seats at the trial being shared by 12 pastors (6/11, 6/12.) See earlier 6/11 post for first mention of Rev. Cornelius Blue.

DiwataMan has a post on them, with some links. One is for a 6/6 Orlando Sentinel report, which suggests there are more than 12 pastors.

Quote
Patterson is among more than a dozen clergy from a variety of Sanford-area churches who have been invited to take turns occupying four reserved courtroom seats to observe the racially charged trial and then meet with their congregations to quell rumors, urge calm and keep peace.

They are part of a larger group of pastors who have been working with the U.S. Department of Justice, the city of Sanford and the Seminole County Sheriff's Office since the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in February 2012 to keep members of black and white communities informed without the rancor and rhetoric.

Quote
Outside the courthouse, the pastors will mingle with the crowd and help deal with any heated protests.

Quote
Thomas Battles, Southeast regional director of the U.S. Department of Justice's community-relations service, was brought into Sanford last year to defuse tensions by getting people on all sides of the issue to sit down and talk.

One of the ideas to ease tensions was to form Sanford Pastors Connecting, a group that brings together pastors of the more than 100 churches in Sanford both black and white for monthly meetings. Pastors credit Battles, who under department policy doesn't talk to the media, with forming the coalition and getting pastors seats in court.

Offline ding7777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Rate Post +19/-59
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2013, 08:29:48 AM »
Daily numbers now including B2:
Exact two-tailed binomial tests of sample so far, assuming Seminole demographics W=66.3%,H=17.1%,B=10.5%

W:  17 of 25: 100% chance of random occurrence (i.e. p-value=1.00)
B:  4 of 25: 33% chance of random occurrence (i.e. p-value=0.33)
H: 3 of 25: 79% chance of random occurrence
Racially, there is no statistically significant difference between the known jurors and the population of Seminole County.

F: 17 of 25: 11% chance  of random occurrence
if we take out jurors B30(better to B30 than be 65), R39(murder is murder), and E7(stealth juror)
F: 17 of 22: 1.7% chance  of random occurrence
Females appear to be preferentially selected in this jury process.

Since we do not know the demographics of those who have been excused for medical, hardship, etc
(I think 73 at last count) how can you correctly extrapolate  random occurrence?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2013, 11:48:31 AM »
assuming Seminole demographics W=66.3%,H=17.1%,B=10.5%

Where did you get those numbers?

I found different ones in a Census Bureau report.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2013, 03:48:51 PM »
Where did you get those numbers?

I found different ones in a Census Bureau report.
I don't recall where I got the previous numbers. Should have been more careful. The 2011 census numbers are very similar and won't change the statistics, but I will change them.
Thanks.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day Three Thoughts, June 12, 2013
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2013, 04:18:56 PM »
Since we do not know the demographics of those who have been excused for medical, hardship, etc
(I think 73 at last count) how can you correctly extrapolate  random occurrence?
Good question.
There are a lot of non-random selection processes leading to the jurors that we now see. The question that the statistics help answer is: do all of those selection processes lead to a sample of jurors that is significantly different than we would see from a purely random draw from the population.

Let's take the females for example from above (17 of 25). I assume that 50% of the population is female. As such this is the same probability as flipping a coin. Out of 25 picks from the population 12 or 13 females would be the most probable, but also 11 or 14 females wouldn't be that much less probable. 10 or 15 females starts to be relatively improbable. Picking a number at least as extreme as 17 females would happen only 11% of the time. In other words if I picked 25 people randomly, then another 25 randomly, then another 25 randomly until I had 100 picks of 25, I would expect to have picked a number at least as extreme as 17 only 11 of the 100 times.
I hope that helps. It is hard to explain this stuff without graphs.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking