Jose Baez wants to introduce into evidence the front pages of newspapers for the past three days so that the court is aware of the jurisdictional publicity that's going on; important for the record. May be those out there not given your instructions and imperative we know what they're exposed to.
The mics again -- Baez says several outlets report alleged communications between him and Anthony that are false. Says reports out there that say he told his client she was acting like a 2 yr old. Says it's false and concerns him because "alleged" news organizations are speculating on atty-client privilege based on murmurs that the mics pic up that exceed coverage so far.
Says Anthony is standing trial for her life and speculation is that this is the inside view of who she is. Gross, totally false. Puts the entire process in peril. I think the proper solution would be that all mics be turned off except the witness and the court. Court needs to be aware that this is going on out there and asks the court for help.
Judge says the court disconnected the mics, at defense's request, at both defense and state's table. Only mics in play are at the podium, witness stand, bench. A PA system is in the courtroom for a specific purpose -- so the people can hear and so the court reporter can hear. She is charged with taking everything down. Must be amplification of sound so she can hear. Lastly, it's a public courtroom, and it wouldn't be public if public didn't have the ability to hear.
Judge says he doesn't have nor want control of what journalists say, print. I may not agree with all they print, but this is America. If someone thinks someone has exceeded bounds of ethics, my suggestion would be to complain to their management. If someone has said something outrageous, one would need to check out whether it violates civil slander or libel. The bar is high for that when one is said to be a public figure.
I caution everybody, if they want private conversation, they may want to go out or in the far reaches of this courtroom because, depending on volume level, someone is going to hear, some people can read lips. I have no control over anyone's ears or eyes, he says. I can't stop them, nor would I want to.
Baez says that court reporter has no trouble hearing attorneys from counsel table. In the alternative, I'd ask that we move the podium as close to the witness as possible if the court is not willing to turn off the podium mic.
Judge says anything said at podium is public, if they need private conversation, there's the option of approaching the bench. Judge suggests if he needs to communicate, the aisle behind him is cleared -- everyone has been moved from behind him to the other side; have done all they could to accommodate him.
Mason asks court to make state give defense any criminal records checks they've run on potential jurors. Judge says that is work product, not discovery, and they aren't obligated to hand it over.
On to the potential jurors now: (I'm typing on the fly here, will clean up when there's opportunity. Please excuse typos, formatting errors.)
Juror #1340 (male) Have you heard anything in the media? Briefly, yes. Doesn't recall source, recalls looking for lost child, that there was a babysitter in an apartment building, the questioning and eventually when they found the remains.
Do you recall whether it was TV, paper or internet? I believe it was TV, but not certain.
Was it something you occasionally heard or that you followed? Just a passing interest.
As a result of what you gleaned from news accounts, have you formed any opinions of defendant's guilt or innocence in this case? It's hard not to form an opinion, but don't think media's reported 100% of information. Initially I thought what a horrible thing, and if she's found guilty, then justice has been done. But I don't know enough to form a firm opinion without information.
In your heart of hearts, can you lay aside anything you've gleaned from media accounts and base whatever decisions you make on the evidence in this case and the law? I believe so. I compartmentalize very well from work.
Any hesitation or reservation about being able to do that? No sir.
You understand you can't bring what you've heard in media into the case vs. the evidence and law? Understand.
You'll base your decisions solely on the evidence and law as I give it to you? Yes, sir.
Linda Drane-Burdick: Have you seen, heard or read any comments made in media by Jose Baez? No idea who that is. LDB goes through rest of attorneys -- he's never heard of any of them.
Do you watch CNN, Headline News? Never.
Ever watched 48 Hours related to this case? No.
She continues through various TV shows (JVM, Geraldo Rivera, Larry King, Nancy Grace, etc.). He's seen nothing of this case on any of the shows, channels.
LDB asks about blogging. He's never blogged about or read any blogs about the case.
Knows who George and Cindy are, but remembers nothing specific about that.
Agrees that he can follow court's instruction in following the law in applying the facts.
Baez questioning the juror now:
When you saw helicopters above courthouse, what did you think? Juror says thought it was a bit of a circus. Had a feeling media was here for this case, but he had no idea what case he might be called for.
When did you become aware this case was going to be heard here? A couple of days before there was a rumor. Mentioned to coworkers I had jury duty coming up. That was Friday.
When you heard it would be here, did you start thinking about this case? To a degree. And when I saw the cameras, I thought they might be for this case, but I didn't recall anything.
Says he is good at compartmentalizing, has learned not to bring work home, to separate parts of his life.
Baez asks about prior coverage, an answer juror gave to the judge previously (that he couldn't be 100% certain it wouldn't affect him). Listening to the evidence, that is top of the list. I would hate to be the cause of having to do this all over again. I believe I can base my opinion solely on what I hear in the courtroom.
Juror says it might be in the back of his mind, but he would not let it influence or take over based on the info provided.
Baez asks about his comment to judge that if Anthony found guilty, justice would be done. Juror said that was his opinion back then, but doesn't recall all the info and realizes he didn't have all info from media.
Juror says he believes 100% he would not let any prior opinion influence the case.
When you thought about penalty in this case, what did you think it should be? Juror says his initial feeling is LWOP is best option because so many have been freed recently on evidence later discovered.
Did you see location where child's remains were found? No sir.
See photos of Anthony prior to today? Have seen a picture or two of her in courtroom.
Did you see any photos of anything that may or may not have happened during the 31 days? He says no.
What is most disturbing piece of evidence that you heard in the news about this case? I honestly don't know. I guess just the sheer disdain for the child's remains to be just thrown away -- whoever did it. Inhumane, can't imagine treating another person that way.
How were remains disposed? If I recall, a wooded area, just left there, but I can't recall for certain.
What else was found? I have no idea, sir.
See any photos of Anthonys family? Not that I recall. Hasn't seen them on news either.
How many brothers/sisters she has or seen them? No idea.
Any statements by LE in the news? No.
Do you know who found Caylee's remains? No. I really didn't follow all that closely. If it was on the news, paid attention for a few mins.
Watches local news stations for most of his news. Now and again, internet reading. Watches local Fox but not Fox News channel. Doesn't watch much national news outside major events like 9/11. Has no idea who Nancy Grace is.
Says he doesn't believe everything on the news. He was friends with someone who had things broadcast incorrectly about them and learned to take it with a grain of salt.
How do you think the media can influence the justice system? I think overstating info and keeping in public eye. The more people hear, the same info over and over, they kind of just take it as fact when in your face so long.
Can media influence whether the state charges someone with a crime? Objection by LDB. Sustained. Asks same about LE. Objection/sustained.
Can media have influence on someone's testimony? Guess it could.
How would you determine whether media was influencing a person's testimony. Objection/sustained.
Have you heard of any witnesses being paid in this case? Objection/sustained.
Should a person be paid for talking about what they know about this case? Objection/sustained.
The judge reminds him for a second time this is the pretrial publicity round, not general voir dire.
What have you heard of Anthony's living arrangements? Nothing. Where did she live, Baez asks? In Orlando, I believe.
What do you know about the babysitter? Just that she was questioned.
Do you know who the child lived with? I assume Miss Anthony.
Judge moves on to questioning juror about death penalty. Asks if he has any opinions about it. Juror says he is for it in certain situations.
Judge asks if he understands that DP is not appropriate in all homicide cases. He replies yes.
Judge says in making a determination about penalty, would he reply the law as he gives it to him vs. whatever situation juror might think it's appropriate for DP.
If facts and law in this case indicate it's appropriate to apply DP, would you have any problem imposing DP? No, sir.
In contrast, he could also vote for LWOP if evidence/law indicate that is appropriate.
Ashton is questioning the juror now. Do you understand that before you even get to the penalty phase, the jury would have already determined the defendant is guilty? Yes, sir.
Your earlier comment about exoneration of people after conviction - what influence would it have on following law and imposing DP? I feel if someone is convicted wrongly, they should be released. On the other hand, seems like 20 yrs is quite drawn out for DP.
Do you have confidence that if you find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, can you set aside your reservations? He says yes, he can.
Tells juror about how judge will give them aggravating/mitigating factors in deciding the penalty; that while guilt phase must be unanimous, penalty phase is individually voted, doesn't have to be unanimous.
If facts and law call for it, could you raise your hand in the jury room and vote for death? If I felt strongly about it, yes. Same thing with LWOP? Yes.
Ann Finnell will now question for the defense:
Wants to be sure he understands only reason they're discussing death penalty is because the law requires it. (He understands that.)
Just because we're talking about the death penalty now, no one in this courtroom presumes to know what the verdict is going to be, she says.
First degree murder carries two possible penalties: death by lethal injection and LWOP. If the sentence were LWOP, even if we tell you she *will* serve her entire life in prison, do you think somehow she would be released? He says he has no idea.
Finnell says in Florida, LWOP means life without ever getting parole. He understands.
You said you're for the DP - why do you feel that way? From what I've seen or read, sometimes I see someone who is just so brutal it doesn't look like they're gonna have a chance to rehabilitate. I think my thinking is more serial killers or multiple victims, crimes so heinous it deserves the DP.
How long have you had belief that DP can be appropriate in certain cases? Probably since college.
Finnell asks on scale of 1-10, how much is he for the DP? He answers probably 7.5 - 8.0.
Juror says he thinks LWOP would be horrible, to know you're never going to get out, leave, would just be awful.
Do you think it takes too long to execute criminals who receive DP? He thinks 20 yrs is too long, but a reasonable time to be sure they've got the right person is good.
Do you think LWOP or DP costs the state more? I know they both cost a lot, but I don't know the answer.
Would that be a factor you would consider? No, I think the punishment, whatever it is, is the one that should be doled out.
You will be shown graphic pictures of a dead child. If you found the mother responsible, should she automatically receive DP? Ashton objects. Sustained.
Have your views about the DP change in nature in the last few years? Any religious beliefs that might influence your decision? No, nothing that would influence my judgment.
Premeditated first degree murder includes what's known as "felony murder," which is a murder that might occur during the commission of certain enumerated felonies. When you sit on the trial phase and are trying to decide if Miss Anthony is guilty.... Objection/Will rephrase.
During trial, you'll be asked to determine whether Anthony is guilty of premeditated murder, felony murder or some lesser included offense. At that time the verdict has to be unanimous. Penalty phase is different. You're entitled to make your own independent determination of what you think the penalty should be. Do you think you're the kind of person who is capable of making an independent decision about that? It won't be easy, but yes.
Would you try to sway another juror to vote the same way you do as to the death penalty? I think healthy discussion is in order, but they're entitled to their opinion. I'd make my vote, they'd make theirs.
Asks about whether what family/coworkers think might influence him. Short answer is no.
Would media coverage, possibility of book deal after trial affect the way you vote? No, wouldn't influence me at all.
You'd have to find aggravating circumstances before voting for DP. If you don't find those proven beyond exclusion of reasonable doubt, LWOP would be the way you'd have to vote. Can you follow that law? Yes.
Mitigation doesn't have to be prove beyond reasonable doubt. If you think it's appropriate to vote for LWOP you can vote for it. Do you understand? Juror says yes.
The law never requires anyone to vote for the DP. Even one mitigating factor can cause you to vote for LWOP. Understand? Yes.
Is it possible for you to consider aspects of Anthony's background and character as mitigating factor? I can take that info and process it appropriately.
Sidebar
****** Please note that I'm posting in real time. Will clean things up later. Keep refreshing page to see the latest updates. I'll do separate posts for each juror. With subsequent jurors, since we now know what type of questions will be asked, I'll probably summarize questions/answers of interest instead of posting the entire exchange. ******
Recess is over. Ann Finnell wants to question juror about his opinion of the mitigating factors defense will use in penalty phase. State objects to this. Finnell is using this case in her argument: http://www.law.cornell.edu/
Judge Perry does not interpret the case to mean the defense can go into specifics of facts of case to get a reading on the juror of their thoughts about individual elements of mitigation. Therefore, he is disallowing the defense from going into this line of questioning.
Finnell: It's possible you might hear testimony from expert psychologist to hear background about Anthony. Any experiences that would affect your opinion about that or have any feelings about experts? No. His sister was in accident and relied on psychologists/psychiatrists to help her get back to a normal state.
If found guilty, would you require Anthony to beg for her life? Objection/sustained.
Talking about victim impact evidence. Not a legal aggravating circumstances. Can't be used to make decision about death penalty based on that. Can you set that aside in making penalty decision? Says he would make his decision based on law given to him by judge.
Can you apply same standard of care to decision about LWOP vs. DP as you can in decisions in your own life? Yes.
Now moving on to general voir dire. Linda Drane-Burdick for the state:
Asks about prior jury service. First real experience. Was summoned once but sent home.
LDB: Any issues with cameras in the court? No, he realizes they are forbidden from filming the jury.
LDB asks if he understands he doesn't have to talk to anyone if he doesn't want to after the trial. Yes, he understands.
Is he concerned about media contacting him after trial? No. Type that would want to talk with media? He doesn't believe so.
Does not have a website, has never published anything, never written letter to the editor.
Juror works for a medical courier service. Typically works 12 hr day. He is a shift supervisor. He manages a team of 7 people. Has done this for 10 yrs. Was in sales before that.
Background: Some college. Went to Lenoir-Rhyne College in Hickory, NC. Married since 1999; wife is a nurse; one child; siblings; raised by both parents.
LDB asks if his parents are raising grandchildren. They are not.
Asks if his daughter is only child he's ever cared for. Says he has large family and he's watched their children at times, as well as his youngest sibling who is 11 yrs his junior.
Any extended responsibility for your daughter on your own? No. Has a good family network. All four grandparents able and excited to help out. Always someone available to help. They see daughter at least once a week.
On juror questionnaire, you indicated some member of your family or a close friend was victim of crime? Yes, friend who managed restaurant was stabbed and killed in a robbery about 4 yrs ago. Did not attend trial, but found some info online that perp had been tried and deported.
Do you believe that experience would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in a murder case? I think it's different. This one was personal, so my objectivity was skewed. No connection to this case, so being objective will be easier.
Know anyone who has been a victim of sexual assault? No. Know anyone accused of a crime? Asks her to clarify. Has cousin with DUI, if that's what she's looking for. Know anyone who's been accused of sexual assault, even if never charged? No, ma'am.
(IS HER QUESTIONING ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT RELATED TO DEFENSE THEORY? MANY HAVE SPECULATED CLAIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY GEORGE ANTHONY.)
LDB asks about pets. He has a dob, a lab. She's done and Baez is back at the podium for the defense.
Baez asks the juror, "Who are you - not your name, but who are you?" I'm a son, father, big brother, friend, likeable, loves sports.
Baez asks if he would like to be a juror in this case. "I think it would be interesting." Why? "Just the nature of the case, trying to solve a mystery is interesting to me." Doesn't look forward to being away from his regular life and loved ones, but if that's what it calls for, he and his wife have discussed it and are willing and able to survive it.
As for family/friends discussing case, a few have tried, but he covered his ears like a kid, he said, and made it clear he can't talk to them about it or even listen to it.
Juror really likes mysteries, shows like NCIS. Said he realizes real life isn't like TV shows, though.
What do you think about the burden of proof? Will be challenge for prosecution to remove all doubt from anyone's mind. Thinks that's the brilliance of the system, that you have to make these people believe 100% that there's no doubt, whichever way it goes.
Do you think defense should try to help prove someone's innocence? If info becomes available that the prosecution is aware of, more of a moral obligation that you have to share that information.
Do you think if defense has some info that would prove their innocence, that they should be required to present it? More of a moral decision to present it. If you can prevent someone from spending life in a cage, then yes.
Are there certain things that you can't prove? Yes. Can't prove there's a God, heaven or hell. Any way to prove a negative? Not sure how to answer, he says. Asks for example. Baez goes way off course giving an example...they're off on a tangent now. Talking about juror having 2 members of LE in family.
Do you feel LE are more credible than, say, a lay witness? My specific experience with my cousins is that they're faithful and want to do the right thing. I believe they're credible - whether more credible, I don't know.
Juror enjoys shows like CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds. I'm beginning to think he knew all the right answers coming in and really, really wants to serve.
Do you think people with "Dr." before their name are more credible? He says Kevorkian is a doctor, and many don't find him credible. So he doesn't think they're necessarily more credible.
As juror in this case, will probably be most important decision of your life? Asking wife to marry me and when we decided to have a child was very big decision.
Baez asks about lack of evidence - does juror think it's fair or that he should base decision on lack of evidence? Yes, because lack of evidence would lead to reasonable doubt.
If you thought someone was "maybe" guilty, could that influence your opinion? No, that wouldn't be fair.
What about "probably" guilty? For me, it's middle ground...someone thought they did something, and then I have to make a decision based on what I hear and see.
As we start off in trial, person is "probably" guilty because something happened to bring them here, but you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I would change my opinion based on the evidence. Thinks "suspect" is a better word for it. There's a reason - somebody, somewhere felt there was reason to pursue that person further. Job of attorneys on both sides to find out why.
Can you look at someone and say a person on trial, like Anthony, is innocent as they sit there? I really can't say. Can't say with any degree of accuracy. Wouldn't be fair.
Judge interrupts to re-read his instruction about presumption of innocence. Asks if he is selected as juror, could he abide by law that defendant is innocent until evidence proves otherwise. Juror replies yes and apologizes, says he misunderstood.
Baez asks if he discussed case with his wife. He says only the logistics of his serving. Baez mentions his wife being a nurse. She works in an assisted living center.
Baez asks if he knows a "John Gardner" and juror replies yes. Baez asks if anyone has posted about his jury service on FB. Juror says he may have posted on FB just generically that he has jury service. Aware of any postings about you being a juror in this case on FB? Not that I'm aware of.
You will see photos of Caylee's remains. How will that affect you? Not something I'm looking forward to. I honestly don't know. I'm sure it would be disturbing. Says it would not affect his decision.
Think it's fair for defendant not to take the stand; doesn't think she needs to take stand.
Judge re-reads bits about defendant having no burden to prove anything and no obligation to testify. Juror says he has no problem with that.
Juror tells Baez he'd be curious, but it wouldn't affect his decision.
What are some reasons an innocent person might not testify? Judge: That is not a proper question.
You've been lied to or seen people lie. Give me some examples why people lie. Juror - to spare feelings, keep information private.
Is lying ever okay? As a father, I have to say no. If you omit certain information to spare feelings, I think that's okay. Don't think you need to tel someone something that would harm them or cause them distress.
Ever had anything so bad happen to you that you told no one about it? (HERE WE GO...THIS IS WHERE THE DEFENSE IS GOING AT TRIAL). Juror - there's one thing that pops in mind that I've never shared.
Why do you think you've kept it to yourself so long? Looking back, it wasn't as devastating as I thought at the time.
If someone lied on the stand, would you discredit their entire testimony? Objection / sustained.
Judge addressing the attorneys: Purpose of jury selection is to find fair jury. To find out if they would follow the law, whether they're free of bias/prejudice/life experience that might affect ability to render fair decision. Jury selection is NOT meant to pre-try your case by laying out your facts. Some questions have bordered on that. If you ask about legal concepts without giving the law it's based on, can't necessarily strike a juror as a result of response to that question.
Judge says court reporter has to take a break every so often (I hear you on that, judge!). Says state will go first with all odd number jurors/defense on even numbered. After this juror, will ask state if they want to exercise peremptory or stricken for cause, they'll be excused. Then we'll go through the rest of them. We have 37 to get through the rest of today.
Court is in recess til 12:45.
After the lunch break, Baez continues exam of Juror #1340. He has been arrested twice -- once on a suspended licenses snafu and another during a fight in college.
Ann Finnell is questioning again now. Would you be able to consider certain aspects of Anthony's background, such as abuse? Objection, case-specific. She re-asks in general terms. Juror - it would come into play. School record? Might be pertinent. Employment? Might show consistency. Dysfunctional family? Yes. Brain development? If it were presented, it obviously pertains to the situation.
Questioning is complete. Neither side issues a challenge. We have the first juror -- Juror #1340. New post for next juror.
Juror #1398 - Judge is going through the standard initial address to/questioning of juror. She has not looked at any news, talked to anyone about the case, as instructed.The mics again -- Baez says several outlets report alleged communications between him and Anthony that are false. Says reports out there that say he told his client she was acting like a 2 yr old. Says it's false and concerns him because "alleged" news organizations are speculating on atty-client privilege based on murmurs that the mics pic up that exceed coverage so far.
Says Anthony is standing trial for her life and speculation is that this is the inside view of who she is. Gross, totally false. Puts the entire process in peril. I think the proper solution would be that all mics be turned off except the witness and the court. Court needs to be aware that this is going on out there and asks the court for help.
Judge says the court disconnected the mics, at defense's request, at both defense and state's table. Only mics in play are at the podium, witness stand, bench. A PA system is in the courtroom for a specific purpose -- so the people can hear and so the court reporter can hear. She is charged with taking everything down. Must be amplification of sound so she can hear. Lastly, it's a public courtroom, and it wouldn't be public if public didn't have the ability to hear.
Judge says he doesn't have nor want control of what journalists say, print. I may not agree with all they print, but this is America. If someone thinks someone has exceeded bounds of ethics, my suggestion would be to complain to their management. If someone has said something outrageous, one would need to check out whether it violates civil slander or libel. The bar is high for that when one is said to be a public figure.
I caution everybody, if they want private conversation, they may want to go out or in the far reaches of this courtroom because, depending on volume level, someone is going to hear, some people can read lips. I have no control over anyone's ears or eyes, he says. I can't stop them, nor would I want to.
Baez says that court reporter has no trouble hearing attorneys from counsel table. In the alternative, I'd ask that we move the podium as close to the witness as possible if the court is not willing to turn off the podium mic.
Judge says anything said at podium is public, if they need private conversation, there's the option of approaching the bench. Judge suggests if he needs to communicate, the aisle behind him is cleared -- everyone has been moved from behind him to the other side; have done all they could to accommodate him.
Mason asks court to make state give defense any criminal records checks they've run on potential jurors. Judge says that is work product, not discovery, and they aren't obligated to hand it over.
On to the potential jurors now: (I'm typing on the fly here, will clean up when there's opportunity. Please excuse typos, formatting errors.)
Juror #1340 (male) Have you heard anything in the media? Briefly, yes. Doesn't recall source, recalls looking for lost child, that there was a babysitter in an apartment building, the questioning and eventually when they found the remains.
Do you recall whether it was TV, paper or internet? I believe it was TV, but not certain.
Was it something you occasionally heard or that you followed? Just a passing interest.
As a result of what you gleaned from news accounts, have you formed any opinions of defendant's guilt or innocence in this case? It's hard not to form an opinion, but don't think media's reported 100% of information. Initially I thought what a horrible thing, and if she's found guilty, then justice has been done. But I don't know enough to form a firm opinion without information.
In your heart of hearts, can you lay aside anything you've gleaned from media accounts and base whatever decisions you make on the evidence in this case and the law? I believe so. I compartmentalize very well from work.
Any hesitation or reservation about being able to do that? No sir.
You understand you can't bring what you've heard in media into the case vs. the evidence and law? Understand.
You'll base your decisions solely on the evidence and law as I give it to you? Yes, sir.
Linda Drane-Burdick: Have you seen, heard or read any comments made in media by Jose Baez? No idea who that is. LDB goes through rest of attorneys -- he's never heard of any of them.
Do you watch CNN, Headline News? Never.
Ever watched 48 Hours related to this case? No.
She continues through various TV shows (JVM, Geraldo Rivera, Larry King, Nancy Grace, etc.). He's seen nothing of this case on any of the shows, channels.
LDB asks about blogging. He's never blogged about or read any blogs about the case.
Knows who George and Cindy are, but remembers nothing specific about that.
Agrees that he can follow court's instruction in following the law in applying the facts.
Baez questioning the juror now:
When you saw helicopters above courthouse, what did you think? Juror says thought it was a bit of a circus. Had a feeling media was here for this case, but he had no idea what case he might be called for.
When did you become aware this case was going to be heard here? A couple of days before there was a rumor. Mentioned to coworkers I had jury duty coming up. That was Friday.
When you heard it would be here, did you start thinking about this case? To a degree. And when I saw the cameras, I thought they might be for this case, but I didn't recall anything.
Says he is good at compartmentalizing, has learned not to bring work home, to separate parts of his life.
Baez asks about prior coverage, an answer juror gave to the judge previously (that he couldn't be 100% certain it wouldn't affect him). Listening to the evidence, that is top of the list. I would hate to be the cause of having to do this all over again. I believe I can base my opinion solely on what I hear in the courtroom.
Juror says it might be in the back of his mind, but he would not let it influence or take over based on the info provided.
Baez asks about his comment to judge that if Anthony found guilty, justice would be done. Juror said that was his opinion back then, but doesn't recall all the info and realizes he didn't have all info from media.
Juror says he believes 100% he would not let any prior opinion influence the case.
When you thought about penalty in this case, what did you think it should be? Juror says his initial feeling is LWOP is best option because so many have been freed recently on evidence later discovered.
Did you see location where child's remains were found? No sir.
See photos of Anthony prior to today? Have seen a picture or two of her in courtroom.
Did you see any photos of anything that may or may not have happened during the 31 days? He says no.
What is most disturbing piece of evidence that you heard in the news about this case? I honestly don't know. I guess just the sheer disdain for the child's remains to be just thrown away -- whoever did it. Inhumane, can't imagine treating another person that way.
How were remains disposed? If I recall, a wooded area, just left there, but I can't recall for certain.
What else was found? I have no idea, sir.
See any photos of Anthonys family? Not that I recall. Hasn't seen them on news either.
How many brothers/sisters she has or seen them? No idea.
Any statements by LE in the news? No.
Do you know who found Caylee's remains? No. I really didn't follow all that closely. If it was on the news, paid attention for a few mins.
Watches local news stations for most of his news. Now and again, internet reading. Watches local Fox but not Fox News channel. Doesn't watch much national news outside major events like 9/11. Has no idea who Nancy Grace is.
Says he doesn't believe everything on the news. He was friends with someone who had things broadcast incorrectly about them and learned to take it with a grain of salt.
How do you think the media can influence the justice system? I think overstating info and keeping in public eye. The more people hear, the same info over and over, they kind of just take it as fact when in your face so long.
Can media influence whether the state charges someone with a crime? Objection by LDB. Sustained. Asks same about LE. Objection/sustained.
Can media have influence on someone's testimony? Guess it could.
How would you determine whether media was influencing a person's testimony. Objection/sustained.
Have you heard of any witnesses being paid in this case? Objection/sustained.
Should a person be paid for talking about what they know about this case? Objection/sustained.
The judge reminds him for a second time this is the pretrial publicity round, not general voir dire.
What have you heard of Anthony's living arrangements? Nothing. Where did she live, Baez asks? In Orlando, I believe.
What do you know about the babysitter? Just that she was questioned.
Do you know who the child lived with? I assume Miss Anthony.
Judge moves on to questioning juror about death penalty. Asks if he has any opinions about it. Juror says he is for it in certain situations.
Judge asks if he understands that DP is not appropriate in all homicide cases. He replies yes.
Judge says in making a determination about penalty, would he reply the law as he gives it to him vs. whatever situation juror might think it's appropriate for DP.
If facts and law in this case indicate it's appropriate to apply DP, would you have any problem imposing DP? No, sir.
In contrast, he could also vote for LWOP if evidence/law indicate that is appropriate.
Ashton is questioning the juror now. Do you understand that before you even get to the penalty phase, the jury would have already determined the defendant is guilty? Yes, sir.
Your earlier comment about exoneration of people after conviction - what influence would it have on following law and imposing DP? I feel if someone is convicted wrongly, they should be released. On the other hand, seems like 20 yrs is quite drawn out for DP.
Do you have confidence that if you find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, can you set aside your reservations? He says yes, he can.
Tells juror about how judge will give them aggravating/mitigating factors in deciding the penalty; that while guilt phase must be unanimous, penalty phase is individually voted, doesn't have to be unanimous.
If facts and law call for it, could you raise your hand in the jury room and vote for death? If I felt strongly about it, yes. Same thing with LWOP? Yes.
Ann Finnell will now question for the defense:
Wants to be sure he understands only reason they're discussing death penalty is because the law requires it. (He understands that.)
Just because we're talking about the death penalty now, no one in this courtroom presumes to know what the verdict is going to be, she says.
First degree murder carries two possible penalties: death by lethal injection and LWOP. If the sentence were LWOP, even if we tell you she *will* serve her entire life in prison, do you think somehow she would be released? He says he has no idea.
Finnell says in Florida, LWOP means life without ever getting parole. He understands.
You said you're for the DP - why do you feel that way? From what I've seen or read, sometimes I see someone who is just so brutal it doesn't look like they're gonna have a chance to rehabilitate. I think my thinking is more serial killers or multiple victims, crimes so heinous it deserves the DP.
How long have you had belief that DP can be appropriate in certain cases? Probably since college.
Finnell asks on scale of 1-10, how much is he for the DP? He answers probably 7.5 - 8.0.
Juror says he thinks LWOP would be horrible, to know you're never going to get out, leave, would just be awful.
Do you think it takes too long to execute criminals who receive DP? He thinks 20 yrs is too long, but a reasonable time to be sure they've got the right person is good.
Do you think LWOP or DP costs the state more? I know they both cost a lot, but I don't know the answer.
Would that be a factor you would consider? No, I think the punishment, whatever it is, is the one that should be doled out.
You will be shown graphic pictures of a dead child. If you found the mother responsible, should she automatically receive DP? Ashton objects. Sustained.
Have your views about the DP change in nature in the last few years? Any religious beliefs that might influence your decision? No, nothing that would influence my judgment.
Premeditated first degree murder includes what's known as "felony murder," which is a murder that might occur during the commission of certain enumerated felonies. When you sit on the trial phase and are trying to decide if Miss Anthony is guilty.... Objection/Will rephrase.
During trial, you'll be asked to determine whether Anthony is guilty of premeditated murder, felony murder or some lesser included offense. At that time the verdict has to be unanimous. Penalty phase is different. You're entitled to make your own independent determination of what you think the penalty should be. Do you think you're the kind of person who is capable of making an independent decision about that? It won't be easy, but yes.
Would you try to sway another juror to vote the same way you do as to the death penalty? I think healthy discussion is in order, but they're entitled to their opinion. I'd make my vote, they'd make theirs.
Asks about whether what family/coworkers think might influence him. Short answer is no.
Would media coverage, possibility of book deal after trial affect the way you vote? No, wouldn't influence me at all.
You'd have to find aggravating circumstances before voting for DP. If you don't find those proven beyond exclusion of reasonable doubt, LWOP would be the way you'd have to vote. Can you follow that law? Yes.
Mitigation doesn't have to be prove beyond reasonable doubt. If you think it's appropriate to vote for LWOP you can vote for it. Do you understand? Juror says yes.
The law never requires anyone to vote for the DP. Even one mitigating factor can cause you to vote for LWOP. Understand? Yes.
Is it possible for you to consider aspects of Anthony's background and character as mitigating factor? I can take that info and process it appropriately.
Sidebar
****** Please note that I'm posting in real time. Will clean things up later. Keep refreshing page to see the latest updates. I'll do separate posts for each juror. With subsequent jurors, since we now know what type of questions will be asked, I'll probably summarize questions/answers of interest instead of posting the entire exchange. ******
Recess is over. Ann Finnell wants to question juror about his opinion of the mitigating factors defense will use in penalty phase. State objects to this. Finnell is using this case in her argument: http://www.law.cornell.edu/
Judge Perry does not interpret the case to mean the defense can go into specifics of facts of case to get a reading on the juror of their thoughts about individual elements of mitigation. Therefore, he is disallowing the defense from going into this line of questioning.
Finnell: It's possible you might hear testimony from expert psychologist to hear background about Anthony. Any experiences that would affect your opinion about that or have any feelings about experts? No. His sister was in accident and relied on psychologists/psychiatrists to help her get back to a normal state.
If found guilty, would you require Anthony to beg for her life? Objection/sustained.
Talking about victim impact evidence. Not a legal aggravating circumstances. Can't be used to make decision about death penalty based on that. Can you set that aside in making penalty decision? Says he would make his decision based on law given to him by judge.
Can you apply same standard of care to decision about LWOP vs. DP as you can in decisions in your own life? Yes.
Now moving on to general voir dire. Linda Drane-Burdick for the state:
Asks about prior jury service. First real experience. Was summoned once but sent home.
LDB: Any issues with cameras in the court? No, he realizes they are forbidden from filming the jury.
LDB asks if he understands he doesn't have to talk to anyone if he doesn't want to after the trial. Yes, he understands.
Is he concerned about media contacting him after trial? No. Type that would want to talk with media? He doesn't believe so.
Does not have a website, has never published anything, never written letter to the editor.
Juror works for a medical courier service. Typically works 12 hr day. He is a shift supervisor. He manages a team of 7 people. Has done this for 10 yrs. Was in sales before that.
Background: Some college. Went to Lenoir-Rhyne College in Hickory, NC. Married since 1999; wife is a nurse; one child; siblings; raised by both parents.
LDB asks if his parents are raising grandchildren. They are not.
Asks if his daughter is only child he's ever cared for. Says he has large family and he's watched their children at times, as well as his youngest sibling who is 11 yrs his junior.
Any extended responsibility for your daughter on your own? No. Has a good family network. All four grandparents able and excited to help out. Always someone available to help. They see daughter at least once a week.
On juror questionnaire, you indicated some member of your family or a close friend was victim of crime? Yes, friend who managed restaurant was stabbed and killed in a robbery about 4 yrs ago. Did not attend trial, but found some info online that perp had been tried and deported.
Do you believe that experience would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in a murder case? I think it's different. This one was personal, so my objectivity was skewed. No connection to this case, so being objective will be easier.
Know anyone who has been a victim of sexual assault? No. Know anyone accused of a crime? Asks her to clarify. Has cousin with DUI, if that's what she's looking for. Know anyone who's been accused of sexual assault, even if never charged? No, ma'am.
(IS HER QUESTIONING ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT RELATED TO DEFENSE THEORY? MANY HAVE SPECULATED CLAIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY GEORGE ANTHONY.)
LDB asks about pets. He has a dob, a lab. She's done and Baez is back at the podium for the defense.
Baez asks the juror, "Who are you - not your name, but who are you?" I'm a son, father, big brother, friend, likeable, loves sports.
Baez asks if he would like to be a juror in this case. "I think it would be interesting." Why? "Just the nature of the case, trying to solve a mystery is interesting to me." Doesn't look forward to being away from his regular life and loved ones, but if that's what it calls for, he and his wife have discussed it and are willing and able to survive it.
As for family/friends discussing case, a few have tried, but he covered his ears like a kid, he said, and made it clear he can't talk to them about it or even listen to it.
Juror really likes mysteries, shows like NCIS. Said he realizes real life isn't like TV shows, though.
What do you think about the burden of proof? Will be challenge for prosecution to remove all doubt from anyone's mind. Thinks that's the brilliance of the system, that you have to make these people believe 100% that there's no doubt, whichever way it goes.
Do you think defense should try to help prove someone's innocence? If info becomes available that the prosecution is aware of, more of a moral obligation that you have to share that information.
Do you think if defense has some info that would prove their innocence, that they should be required to present it? More of a moral decision to present it. If you can prevent someone from spending life in a cage, then yes.
Are there certain things that you can't prove? Yes. Can't prove there's a God, heaven or hell. Any way to prove a negative? Not sure how to answer, he says. Asks for example. Baez goes way off course giving an example...they're off on a tangent now. Talking about juror having 2 members of LE in family.
Do you feel LE are more credible than, say, a lay witness? My specific experience with my cousins is that they're faithful and want to do the right thing. I believe they're credible - whether more credible, I don't know.
Juror enjoys shows like CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds. I'm beginning to think he knew all the right answers coming in and really, really wants to serve.
Do you think people with "Dr." before their name are more credible? He says Kevorkian is a doctor, and many don't find him credible. So he doesn't think they're necessarily more credible.
As juror in this case, will probably be most important decision of your life? Asking wife to marry me and when we decided to have a child was very big decision.
Baez asks about lack of evidence - does juror think it's fair or that he should base decision on lack of evidence? Yes, because lack of evidence would lead to reasonable doubt.
If you thought someone was "maybe" guilty, could that influence your opinion? No, that wouldn't be fair.
What about "probably" guilty? For me, it's middle ground...someone thought they did something, and then I have to make a decision based on what I hear and see.
As we start off in trial, person is "probably" guilty because something happened to bring them here, but you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I would change my opinion based on the evidence. Thinks "suspect" is a better word for it. There's a reason - somebody, somewhere felt there was reason to pursue that person further. Job of attorneys on both sides to find out why.
Can you look at someone and say a person on trial, like Anthony, is innocent as they sit there? I really can't say. Can't say with any degree of accuracy. Wouldn't be fair.
Judge interrupts to re-read his instruction about presumption of innocence. Asks if he is selected as juror, could he abide by law that defendant is innocent until evidence proves otherwise. Juror replies yes and apologizes, says he misunderstood.
Baez asks if he discussed case with his wife. He says only the logistics of his serving. Baez mentions his wife being a nurse. She works in an assisted living center.
Baez asks if he knows a "John Gardner" and juror replies yes. Baez asks if anyone has posted about his jury service on FB. Juror says he may have posted on FB just generically that he has jury service. Aware of any postings about you being a juror in this case on FB? Not that I'm aware of.
You will see photos of Caylee's remains. How will that affect you? Not something I'm looking forward to. I honestly don't know. I'm sure it would be disturbing. Says it would not affect his decision.
Think it's fair for defendant not to take the stand; doesn't think she needs to take stand.
Judge re-reads bits about defendant having no burden to prove anything and no obligation to testify. Juror says he has no problem with that.
Juror tells Baez he'd be curious, but it wouldn't affect his decision.
What are some reasons an innocent person might not testify? Judge: That is not a proper question.
You've been lied to or seen people lie. Give me some examples why people lie. Juror - to spare feelings, keep information private.
Is lying ever okay? As a father, I have to say no. If you omit certain information to spare feelings, I think that's okay. Don't think you need to tel someone something that would harm them or cause them distress.
Ever had anything so bad happen to you that you told no one about it? (HERE WE GO...THIS IS WHERE THE DEFENSE IS GOING AT TRIAL). Juror - there's one thing that pops in mind that I've never shared.
Why do you think you've kept it to yourself so long? Looking back, it wasn't as devastating as I thought at the time.
If someone lied on the stand, would you discredit their entire testimony? Objection / sustained.
Judge addressing the attorneys: Purpose of jury selection is to find fair jury. To find out if they would follow the law, whether they're free of bias/prejudice/life experience that might affect ability to render fair decision. Jury selection is NOT meant to pre-try your case by laying out your facts. Some questions have bordered on that. If you ask about legal concepts without giving the law it's based on, can't necessarily strike a juror as a result of response to that question.
Judge says court reporter has to take a break every so often (I hear you on that, judge!). Says state will go first with all odd number jurors/defense on even numbered. After this juror, will ask state if they want to exercise peremptory or stricken for cause, they'll be excused. Then we'll go through the rest of them. We have 37 to get through the rest of today.
Court is in recess til 12:45.
After the lunch break, Baez continues exam of Juror #1340. He has been arrested twice -- once on a suspended licenses snafu and another during a fight in college.
Ann Finnell is questioning again now. Would you be able to consider certain aspects of Anthony's background, such as abuse? Objection, case-specific. She re-asks in general terms. Juror - it would come into play. School record? Might be pertinent. Employment? Might show consistency. Dysfunctional family? Yes. Brain development? If it were presented, it obviously pertains to the situation.
Questioning is complete. Neither side issues a challenge. We have the first juror -- Juror #1340. New post for next juror.
The juror has previously heard about the case, but it was a while back and only in a passing, background informational sort of way. When asked if she watches Nancy Grace, she replies, "No, I choose not to." Ditto for Geraldo.
Says she has not formed opinion of innocence or guilt in this case because she knows media is tailored for soundbites and that it's a complex process to determine guilt or innocence. Says she heartily upholds the concept of IUPG.
Juror says she can set aside info/opinion gleaned from media and follow only the law the judge gives her.
This juror is a counselor. I can see that being both good/bad for the defense. If they present a legitimate mental health claim, she might be helpful in deliberations. If they put forth a load of bull, though, she might be more helpful to the prosecution in deliberations.
Baez asking what she thought of helicopters, media. She said she thought something of significance was happening. Became aware attention was due to this case when she walked into the courtroom.
The judge questions her about the death penalty. She says while she values life, she does accept that there are times when the DP is appropriate and just hopes evidence supports it when that happens.
Ashton explains to her that guilt phase must be unanimous verdict, while in penalty phase, jurors vote their own moral conscience. He asks if facts support it and the crime was extremely bad, could she raise her hand and vote yes for DP. She says yes, she could. Ditto to LWOP when asked about that.
Ann Finnell is going through the list of questions she's asked each juror. Expected and appropriate answers by juror. She agrees she can follow the each law Finnell references.
LDB asks about previous jury duty. Juror was on a murder trial panel. Experts in that trial included blood spatter, ballistics, mental health. There was not a penalty phase for them to consider.
This juror was a nurse prior to moving to counseling. She has smelled dead bodies in a hospital -- attended many bedside deaths and prepared bodies to go to morgue. Will defense still want her? I'm guessing not.
Baez asks whether she might get any grief from friends, community if she found Anthony not guilty. Juror says no, though they might ask her about the experience. It doesn't concern her at all.
Done with questioning. No challenges by either side. She is retained.
Juror #1152 now. When the juror was here for the initial round, the judge requested he check with his employer about pay during service. He brought a letter from his employer stating he would not be paid at all. He is excused for hardship.
That's all the jurors for today. Judge Perry addressed the attorneys about setting time limits for voir dire. He will set no limit on death penalty or pretrial publicity questioning, but he will control the scope when they start going afield. There will be a 30-minute time limit for each side with general voir dire.
The judge also took up a matter with the state. The state attorneys have been asking jurors if they had any sensitivities or allergies to any scents. The judge wants to know what that is all about. LDB says there are some samples from the tire well of the car that are still sealed and that they might want the jury to smell them. Judge Perry is not pleased. He says that amounts to asking jurors to become lay witnesses and won't be allowed. Ashton responds that they would not have them smell it to detect decomp, but to recognize that the smell is *not* garbage.
No comments:
Post a Comment