Author Topic: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013  (Read 3800 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 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« on: June 19, 2013, 01:53:21 AM »
Here's a thread to post your thoughts and comments on Day 8 of jury selection, June 19, 2013. We also have a live updating thread, and another for the continued Frye Hearing.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2013, 05:26:43 AM »
Are they doing 30 today because they hope to get a jury out of them, and dispense with the other 10? Or maybe get the main panel of 6 out of the 30, and the alternates from the 10? Or is there some other reason for not dividing the 40 into two groups of 20?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2013, 05:59:39 AM »
Are they doing 30 today because they hope to get a jury out of them, and dispense with the other 10? Or maybe get the main panel of 6 out of the 30, and the alternates from the 10? Or is there some other reason for not dividing the 40 into two groups of 20?

I recall the original number was 21, then 30, then 40.  I speculate the increase from 30 to 40 was instituted to cover "for cause" dismissals, as the 20 dismissals for no cause was known from the start.

I don't know how or when 10 extras will be brought into the courtroom, but speculate that when a single juror is dismissed, for any reason (cause or not-cause), one of the extras will be brought in.  At some point, the questioning will be complete.  If more than 10 jurors remain in the box, the 10 with the most seniority remain for the trial.

If the questioning was divided into two 20 person panels, the priority of seniority would be compromised.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2013, 11:25:11 AM »
One of the smartest things to question the jurors about would be an approximation to what the final jury instructions might be and see if they can understand it.  As I mentioned in the Self Defense and Stand Your Ground Thread, I don't even understand the relatively simple instruction in the Gibbs case.   When they are finally given the jury instructions, will they be allowed to question the judge about the gobbledygook?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2013, 11:44:48 AM »
When they are finally given the jury instructions, will they be allowed to question the judge about the gobbledygook?

The jurors can request 'additional instructions'. I think that would cover clarification of the instructions given.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, p. 169.
Quote
After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they request additional instructions or to have any testimony read or played back to them they may be conducted into the courtroom by the officer who has them in charge and the court may give them the additional instructions or may order the testimony read or played back to them. The instructions shall be given and the testimony presented only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant. All testimony read or played back must be done in open court in the presence of all parties. In its discretion, the court may respond in writing to the inquiry without having the jury brought before the court, provided the parties have received the opportunity to place objections on the record and both the inquiry and response are made part of the record.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2013, 12:47:17 PM »
I was talking about jury instructions in general.  They apparently were questioned about whether or not they watch CSI and Law and Order.  Why is that more relevant than questioning if they can understand legalize?  I did watch for a few minutes in the morning since I saw from NMNM's posts that it might be interesting.  I got a much more favorable impression of Bernie DLR than previously.  He seemed to be really enjoying himself and everybody in the court was enjoying his banter with the jurors.  At one point he was encouraging questions from the jurors.  If they think there will be such opportunities during the trial proper, they will be seriously disappointed. 

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2013, 01:45:27 PM »
Ricky, I removed my comment. According to Cylindir on the live update thread, the prosecuctor is reading them the second degree murder instruction.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2013, 02:14:33 PM »
I hope to find out if they asked any questions about the Murder2 instruction.  As we all know from prior experience, the self defense instruction is really tough but I gather no attempt was made to explain it too them.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2013, 02:20:02 PM »
There was an attempt to explain it.

It was BDLR doing the 'splainin', though.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2013, 02:27:10 PM »
There was an attempt to explain it.

It was BDLR doing the 'splainin', though.

Heh.  All Bernardo claimed was that the law isn't "self defense," that it is "justified use of deadly force."  Nothing in the way of explanation, and as far as I am concerned, his remark was more confusing than clarifying.  A person can be justified in using deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to him or herself.  If that isn't self defense, I'll eat my hat.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2013, 02:42:19 PM »
I have a hunch nothing illuminating was said to them like, "Your most important job will be to decide if it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense.  It doesn't have to be certain, just reasonable.  Now in Florida we have some very definite requirements for somebody to claim self defense which you will use to make your decision, like ...................  Does anybody have questions about those requirements? 

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2013, 02:49:15 PM »
...his remark was more confusing than clarifying...

Unintended consequence, I assure you. ;)

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2013, 08:39:47 PM »
A person can be justified in using deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to him or herself.  If that isn't self defense, I'll eat my hat.

The problem is, people who aren't familiar with 'justifiable use of deadly force', may not understand 'self-defense' as a term of art with the same meaning. They are apt to take it in it's everyday meaning, that the person is 'defending himself'. In that sense, not all cases of 'self-defense' justify deadly force.

I'm sorry, I think you are very wrong. De la Rionda was making an important point that the jury will need to understand, and it's important for both sides. It doesn't matter which one first threw a punch or laid hands on the other. What matters is which one first escalated to deadly force.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 08:44:03 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2013, 08:47:08 PM »
I don't know how or when 10 extras will be brought into the courtroom, but speculate that when a single juror is dismissed, for any reason (cause or not-cause), one of the extras will be brought in. 

At first I thought that made sense. After watching the voir dire this morning, I doubt that anyone gets on the jury without going through the same vetting.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day 8 Thoughts, June 19, 2013
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 09:13:10 PM »
The problem is, people who aren't familiar with 'justifiable use of deadly force', may not understand 'self-defense' as a term of art with the same meaning. They are apt to take it in it's everyday meaning, that the person is 'defending himself'. In that sense, not all cases of 'self-defense' justify deadly force.

I'm sorry, I think you are very wrong. De la Rionda was making an important point that the jury will need to understand, and it's important for both sides. It doesn't matter which one first threw a punch or laid hands on the other. What matters is which one first escalated to deadly force.

You might want to clarify that, since the standard doesn't only mention deadly force after all.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking