***Please keep in mind I'm basically typing a semi-transcript, so please excuse typos or errors. Between live-blogging and tweeting, can't proofread as I go.
The defense has a motion objecting to the selection procedure. Lisabeth Fryer objects to the way peremptory challenges are being applied in the case, saying the selection is moving too quickly and Anthony's due process rights are being violated as a result. Judge tells her to name one instance where they weren't allowed to question the juror all they wanted. She can't.
Basically, it sounded to me that defense took issue with the fact they aren't allowed to go through the entirety of the jury pool before 12 are sworn in (once that happens, they can't strike any on that panel; if they like an alternate better, they wouldn't be able to strike one the 12 and have the alternate fill that slot).
Ashton says state could find no case law contradicting the judge's wanting to swear in the 12 jurors separately from the alternates.
Judge says this is an "exceptional" case. There was a change of venue because of extensive pretrial publicity and hostility toward defendant in Orange County.
Judge: This court has permitted voir dire on every subject. Have brought in over 150 people, excused many. We have 16 left to question. The court not only has obligation to see that defendant enjoys the securities of the constitution but also has to balance the interests of jurors -- citizens who have no choice but to come here when ordered to. Potential jurors are not grist for the grist mill to be set aside, used up, inconvenienced for no sake at all. Court has tried to balance. Some folks in limbo more than a week.
Judge: One of the problems, when jurors are away as prospective jurors, is ensuring they abide by court's instructions not to read, watch, listen or talk about news accounts. This court has permitted attorneys to question prospective jurors on every subject they wanted to, even to the point we questioned one juror 3-4 hours. The court gave both sides notice that we needed to limit it because the purpose is to ferret out jurors who have biases that would cause them to be unfair.
Judge: Attorneys try to pick jurors favorable to their side -- the dirty little secret people don't want to talk about. But the purpose is to find someone fair and impartial. Consistent with the constitution and rules of procedure, court has done all it could to balance rights of the defendant with the very small rights of jurors, consistent with the rules and case law. Therefore, motion is denied.
Judge: Juror 3283 walked into courtroom and heard a few seconds of counsel's argument. Judge: "Now do you understand what I've been trying to tell y'all? What do you want to do about him?" They bring him in and judge asks what he heard; said he didn't hear anything, so they begin the voir dire of juror.
Juror #3283 does not have computer access at home. Knows very little about case. Saw newspaper article saying that Anthony was on trial for the death of her young child. He has no opinion about guilt.
Linda Drane Burdick for the state. Juror didn't show yesterday because he didn't have gas or transportation. He made no apologies for not showing up. Apparently there are numerous TVs on at his job. He says they are usually tuned to national cable news. Juror had not seen any of the attys prior to coming to court. Juror does not have TV or computer at home. He says he has not discussed case with anyone nor heard it discussed.
Juror says he knew Anthony's name either from paper or the brief snippets he's heard on TV. Says he knows nothing about the case. He seemed quite defensive with LDB, as if he felt she was trying to trip him up. I don't know why, exactly, but I'm picking up a very hinky, weird vibe about this guy.
Baez asks about TVs at work. Juror says they're there for members (bank of TVs, apparently, sort of like TVs in airports for passengers). They're on, but he can't watch, has to work.
Judge begins death penalty discussion with juror. He has no opinion on it. Tells judge he'd have no problem applying instructions for mitigating/aggravating factors. Can vote for DP if warranted.
Ashton for state. Juror says he's had general conversation of death penalty in context of how swiftly it comes in other countries. When Ashton asks if he wants to serve, juror says, "Of course I do." Ashton asks why and the juror replies "Why not?" Ashton asks if juror comes to conclusion DP is appropriate, can he actually vote for it. Juror says yes.
Finnell asks on scale of 1-10 where is he for DP. Juror says he's neutral. He understands the concepts she explains and agrees to follow the law and instructions of judge. He can consider age as mitigation. He will also consider mercy. Agrees not to consider victim impact statements in determining penalty.
General voir dire by the state. Juror tells LDB he is 42, single, no kids. Never worked in law enforcement or been in military. When asked if he or any family have ever been accused of a crime, he replies, "I won't answer that in court." So the judge calls everyone to a sidebar to discuss away from the mics.
Juror tells LDB he has been personal trainer. Has worked at Bay Care for 6 yrs in the PT and occupational therapy dept. Also is a composer and playwright. Has a catalog of music he is copyrighting so he can publish it. The name of his play is "You Took My Life Away" -- ironic in the context of this case. He says it was about breaking up with a girlfriend in high school.
LDB asks what he saw when he accidentally popped in courtroom before he was supposed to. He said he saw only Judge Perry.
Baez discusses presumption of innocence, testimonial/physical evidence, burden of proof, reasonable doubt -- juror agrees he can follow law and instructions regarding those things.
***Judge says they've interviewed over 200 jurors. There are 15 left. Defense wants to interview them all, he says. At an hour per juror, that's at least 15 hrs. They will not have a facility after tomorrow. If they don't get a jury, they have to start all over elsewhere, and finding a courtroom for 2 weeks is a huge problem. It would have to be somewhere rural that doesn't use their courtrooms very much. The judge said that, theoretically, the defense could go through 1000 witnesses til they found the ones they wanted if the judge didn't at some point swear in a panel of 12. He is very worried. (So am I.)
Is the defense attempting to delay/derail the trial, to buy more time, to cause an issue on appeal that pretrial publicity was so massively prejudicial that Anthony can never get a fair trial anywhere? Or is it simply they haven't found jurors they're satisfied with and defense is sincere in the manner in which it is going about jury selection? I think they're obviously trying to stack the deck in their favor (and so long as they have peremptory strikes left, that's their right), but I would certainly hate for everyone to have to go through all this effort again (and taxpayers have to pay for another round).
State asked for a brief recess to discuss the Juror 3283. The state uses a peremptory strike for the juror and he is excused.
NEWS: Judge says Pinellas County chief judge will allow them to use the courtroom Friday and Saturday, if needed. Judge says if they have a jury by the end of that time, opening statements will begin in Orange County courthouse at 9:00 a.m. Monday.
Will start a new post after the lunch recess for the afternoon session. Well, scrap that. When court reconvened, Judge Perry asked Mason if he'd talked to his client and Mason said he had. The judge then called recess til tomorrow morning at 8:30.
A few possibilities: I wonder if Pinellas extended use of courtroom and another batch of jurors will be called up and they don't want to tip potential jurors and have them start reading about the case; or maybe there's a change in defense team they don't want made public til it happens to avoid a media circus?
Jean Casarez speculated it could be that defense will file an interlocutory appeal on the jury selection issues (seems very plausible -- likely, even -- except that I don't see a need for secrecy about it, not just from judge, but everyone else asked later about it).
Vinnie Politan said even a plea deal negotiation could be possible. Baez was absent, so there was also speculation he was ill (unless Baez had a breakdown or something, I don't think that's it or judge would have probably mentioned the reason).
UPDATE: Jose Baez has released a statement to several news outlets about the abrupt recess of Court until tomorrow:
"Today's adjournment was due to a private matter. Please stop the speculation, as jury selection will continue at 8:30 tomorrow morning. No further statements will be made.” Courtesy of @OSCaseyAnthony.
Okay, I accept it was a private matter, and it could be coincidence that it happened when it did. First and foremost, I hope no one is extremely ill or worse. If not, then the timing certainly seems fortuitous for the defense. Their motion regarding the impropriety of the judge's jury selection process was denied this morning. Then the state bounced the one juror who was interviewed immediately afterward (one Baez thought he'd probably want since he's all about getting minorities on the jury). That left the court one away from the 12 needed in order to swear in a jury.
As lead counsel, unless Anthony gives permission to proceed without him, things come to a halt at this stage of the process if he is unavailable. Perhaps when the judge asked Mason if he'd talked to his client, he was referring to whether she would consent to letting one of the others do the questioning in place of Baez (Mason is far more qualified anyway). If that's the case, then she obviously said no when asked.
Since I'd feel awful if something tragic had happened, I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now. But it's worth noting that this certainly wouldn't be the first time for orchestrated shenanigans in this case. We'll see how it plays out.
Seems like if the cause was illness, how could the judge announce that court would continue at 8:30 tomorrow? If it was that serious whose to say Baez will be over his illness and ready to go in the am. This sounds rather fishy to me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Baez was just being a little baby, saying he was ill and that's how everyone knows he'll be good for the next morning
ReplyDelete