***Live-blogging juror questioning. Refresh page to see latest updates.***
Next up is Juror #1232. Has seen TV/newspaper reports. Might have discussed at some point with his wife. Has formed no opinion about guilt or innocence. Juror says he can set aside what he's seen and based his decision solely on the law as the judge gives it to him.
LDB questions the juror: She asks if he can provide detail about what he's seen. He replies it's just everyday stuff he would come across. He said what he'd seen was that someone had been accused of killing a child.
He said most of his info came from Bay News 9. Says he hasn't heard anything in the past year or so. He works for St. Pete Times and got his print news from that publication.
Juror says he's never seen any member of the defense team on TV. Doesn't watch CNN, morning TV. Has heard of Jane Valez-Mitchell and Geraldo, but hasn't watched their shows. Heard of Larry King and Nancy Grace, but on too late (he works overnight).
He has watched Court TV/TruTV, he says, but not about this case. Says it's usually his wife watching it. Can't remember individual case.
Doesn't read magazines or tabloids she mentions. Only blog he reads is about baseball.
Has heard of Geo & Cindy, seems to recall Geo being angry and having a health problem. Says he formed no opinion about them that he couldn't set aside. Did not see televised proceedings in this case.
Have you formed an opinion about what appropriate punishment would be in this case based on pretrial publicity? No, not at all.
Jose Baez questioning the juror:
Juror has never seen any of prosecution team on TV. Baez asks if he's ever seen anyone speaking on behalf of state. He hasn't. Hasn't seen any of the LE Baez mentions.
What type of things did you see on daily basis with this case? Juror recalls they were talking about the child missing, remembers when remains were found. Knows her name is Caylee. He recalls news reports that remains found not far from home, in woods. Doesn't know of anything else found at that location or how she might have been placed there
Baez asks what the juror learned about Anthony in the news reports. Juror doesn't recall. Nothing rings a bell, he didn't follow it that much. Asks that he did see photos. Believes they were mugshot and casual photos. Believe one was with couple of her friends.
Juror says he didn't see any news about her car. Isn't aware of any evidence police have.
Juror says his TV watching is basically baseball and whatever his kids watch. He has Bay News 9 on when getting ready for work. Watches it every day.
Baez asks about helicopters/media. Juror says he knew they were there for this case via the radio, 970AM, he thinks. Thinks he heard news reports on Sunday. He told his employer he had jury duty and when he heard this case was here, he realized he could get called for it. Doesn't know the reporters at his paper. He does not use FB, Twitter, myspace or any other type of social media. Juror does watch Dr. G, watches some Fox News but prefers MSNBC.
Juror has thought about the death penalty. If on jury for Osama Bin Laden, could vote for the DP; philosophically he's not for or against it.
The judge is now explaining responsibilities re trial and death penalty. Explains he will give him the law and use it in making whatever decision he arrives at. Juror says if facts of case would warrant DP, would have no trouble voting for it. If it warranted LWOP, no problem doing that either.
Ashton is questioning for the state now. Asks if juror feels so strongly about certain situations that he'd automatically presume death was appropriate penalty. He replies murder of police, his family. But outside of personal situation, no.
If you have situation where you think death penalty might be appropriate but law doesn't allow that to be imposed, could you follow the law even though your heart says differently? "I will always follow the law.
Ann Finnell now for the defense:
Going over DP vs. LWOP. If you hear that LWOP means just that, that she'd have to serve entire life in prison, can you follow that and believe that's the sentence she'd get? He says yes, absolutely. Likewise, she asks, regarding DP, does he understand she'd be killed by lethal injection? He does.
She asks if he's for the death penalty. He says it's difficult to say. Says he could go either way, wherever the law led him. On scale of 1-10, where are you on DP? If it weren't my family, LE, terrorist, I'd lean more towards a 4.
The judge sustains state's objections to Finnell's repeated attempts to introduce anti-DP views via questions of the juror. Judge tells her it's improper questioning. She argues to the judge that it is proper, but he holds his ground.
Court in recess for ten minutes.
Finnell makes motion to strike the juror because the judge said in front of juror that her questions were improper. Motion denied.
She resumes questioning the juror. Explains that decision in penalty phase is an individual one, opposed to unanimous decision in guilt phase. She asks if he can make an individual decision. He says he can and agrees he would bring his own life experiences and common sense to bear on his decision.
Juror says media publicity of the case would not influence his decisions whatsoever.
She is explaining aggravating factors have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for DP, and if they aren't, the penalty has to be LWOP. He says he understands and can follow that law.
Mitigating circumstances - even if state has proven aggravating factors, you don't have to vote for DP, can also vote for LWOP. Agrees he can weight the factors in making decision.
Wants to be sure he understands that even a cold-blooded, premeditated murder conviction doesn't automatically mean death sentence. He understands.
Would you consider a person's background as mitigating factors, like verbal, physical, sexual abuse, family dysfunction, brain disorder? Yes, absolutely, he says.
Juror says he would not hold not testifying in penalty phase against Anthony.
If she chose to testify in penalty phase but still maintained her innocence, would that anger you to the point you couldn't consider mitigating evidence, to the point you'd vote for death? Remorse always helps, but it wouldn't affect the way I would vote in penalty phase.
Victim impact evidence - tells juror judge will explain that they aren't evidence or aggravating evidence. He agrees he will not give them weight in making decision.
Judge says they are moving on to general voir dire now. Reminds juror of presumption of innocence. Asks if juror has any problem complying with that. Juror answers, "No, none." Also says no problem if defendant doesn't testify.
LDB - general voir dire for the state:
Asks if media presence in courtroom causes any concern for him. He says none whatsoever. He agrees not to let it be a distraction. Tells him that he doesn't have to talk about jury service if he chooses not to. Asks if he has any concern about being contacted by media. None, he says. Says he is not at all someone who would want to be on TV talking about his experience.
One of juror's friends was the second victim of the DC Sniper. Says nothing about that would affect his ability to be impartial in this case.
Mason is now questioning for the defense:
Asks if news he saw included protesting in front of Anthony house. Juror says never saw any of that. Discussed it with his wife. Mason says he's seen someone before and thought, "that's a no-good SOB." Have you ever done that? Juror says maliciously, no. Mason asks if he's done it at all. Juror says maybe to a sports figure. Did he discuss guilt or innocence of Casey? LDB objects to using defendant's first name. Mason changes it to Ms. Anthony. Juror says they didn't really discuss that aspect of it.
Juror says he might have followed super high-profile cases, like terrorist type stuff. Says he has not "followed" cases, but he read about Madoff, that kind of thing. Just what he saw in the papers.
Juror says he wouldn't have any concerns about repercussions for voting not guilty. Mason asks if he's heard it's better to let a bunch of guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. LDB objects, but juror answered yes and that he agreed with it.
Mason asks if he wants to be on the jury. Juror says no because it impacts his life in so many ways, but feels it's his civic duty to serve.
No challenges to this witness. He's retained and we have Juror No 2.
***Judge has revised his opinion that they would get through 37 jurors today and has downsized that to "2 or 3 more." He is Shepardizing some cases to check case law for time limits/scope of voir dire. He wants to impose time limits tomorrow. He's keeping 3 jurors to question today and is sending the rest home to return tomorrow. Explains to them that in such a serious case, the questioning is going slow. Apologizes to them, tells them he values their time. Also admonishes them not to discuss case, watch news accts. etc.***
Will start a new post for next juror.
No comments:
Post a Comment