Day 6 - Jury Selection II (After Lunch Recess)

***Refresh page to see newest posts; blogging as we go today.***

The first juror up after lunch is Juror #1167. He recalls that Anthony was charged with her child's murder; that she was wrapped in a plastic bag, he says; that there was evidence of decomp in the trunk; that Anthony did not get along with her mother. The juror has not formed an opinion as to guilt, he says; agrees he can set aside anything he's heard and judge based only on the evidence and law.

The juror states, however, that he is totally against capital punishment and could vote the death penalty only if there were proof beyond ANY doubt, not beyond reasonable doubt. The judge asks him if he could find guilt in the guilt phase with beyond a reasonable doubt. Juror says he can.

Judge moves on to the penalty phase now and explains a juror can still serve, even if opposed to the death penalty, so long as the juror agrees that he can follow the judge's instructions about the law. Judge Perry reads the language about aggravating/mitigating factors.

Judge Perry then asks the juror whether, even if the evidence warranted it, his concerns about the death penalty would prevent him from voting guilty. He says it would. That he simply just could not do it. Excused for cause.

Juror #1251 is next. She had heard a little on TV off and on the past few years about the case. Was not an active follower; just caught news occasionally if it happened to be on. Doesn't have cable TV. After Caylee was found, next thing she remembers hearing is when case was moved to Pinellas County for juror selection.

Juror's daughter has 2 yr old, had asked when she visited whether it was this case but juror told her she had to be neutral about it. This was last Monday (Defense may not want to keep this juror since she's the grandmother of a 2 yr old).

The juror agrees she can set aside anything she's seen/heard and judge based solely on law.  Interestingly, after the usual question the judge asks as a follow-up, "Do you have any reservations or concerns about being able to do that," when she replied "No," the judge asked more emphatically - "Are you 100% absolutely certain of that?" My guess is he is thinking defense will want to strike and he wants to clarify with her ahead of that that she will be fair and impartial, despite being close to a child the same age as Caylee was when she disappeared.

The state is questioning the juror. The juror is relating the conversation she had with her daughter about serving. Her daughter told her it may change her life. She told her daughter all they could do was wait and see. Her daughter has not probed her nor offered commentary about the case because they both respect the sanctity of the process

Baez asks the juror if, being a grandmother, coverage of the case affected her; she says maybe a bit, the age of Caylee/grandchild. She says she can put that aside and focus on only the evidence.

Juror is a teacher of gifted children and teaches on a problem-based standard, giving fuzzy details and students using logic to work it out.

Judge questions about the death penalty. Juror says she can follow all the instructions and law and judge fairly. When judge explains mitigating/aggravating factors and asks if she can consider them, she says she "thinks" so. After judge clarifies it for her, she says she'll remove the "think" -- that she can follow the instructions. Also says she understands DP/LWOP and can vote DP if evidence warrants it.

The judge calls a 10 min break.

After the break, the state questions Juror 1251 about the previously mentioned similarity in age between Caylee and the juror's granddaughter. The juror says she takes her responsibility in this process very seriously and would be impartial and fair and follow the law.

Ann Finnell questions for the defense. Juror says she is an "8" for DP on scale of 1-10 and that she has no religious/political organization affiliations with an outlook on DP. The juror says she would not be swayed nor sway anyone else from an opinion.

Finnell asks if she believes in an eye for an eye. Juror says in certain international situations, yes (e.g., Osama bin Laden). In an everyday setting, she says "Simplistically, yes." Finnell moves on to age. Again, another juror thinks she should give her opinion, not whether she *could* consider it if instructed to by the judge. Juror says if crime is especially heinous, age shouldn't be a factor.

State objects and says Finnell needs to frame it in terms of "if given the instruction to..." Again, the judge has to take time to explain the proper context and re-ask the question. Unfortunately, my feed cut out for several mins. No idea how she answered.

Juror says she can disregard victim impact statements in making her decision. She sees herself as middle of the road -- firm but fair is how she's referred to in teaching field.

State has no general voir dire. Baez will question for the defense. He asks her about her finances/employer pay, but I couldn't make it out due to feed cutting out again.

Baez asks juror if believing Anthony guilty on one matter would cause her to find her guilty on another. Juror says no. Baez asks about presumption of innocence. Juror says she is neutral. Baez clarifies difference between neutral and giving defense presumption of innocence. She promises to do so.

Baez says jurors will be instructed about evaluating evidence. Juror says she can follow the instructions on how to do so.

Judge Perry asks the juror to step outside. No challenges from state or defense. She will be the 10th juror retained.

Next up is Juror 1001. Judge goes through preliminaries.  Juror has seen/read nothing about the case. Has heard casual mention of coworkers on their break, in context of their discussing Nancy Grace show. When asked which names he'd heard coworkers mention, he said, "Just her over there," referring to Anthony

Juror is a student. Has visited in Orange County but didn't see on TV or hear on radio any case-related news. He has 245 friends on FB. Has not posted about the case nor, so far as knows (because he hasn't been on it), received messages from others about it.

Juror says his mom watches Nancy Grace regularly, but he leaves the room soon as it comes on. Doesn't watch any of the other shows George mentions. Has never seen any news or report about this case.

Baez tells juror he's curious how he went so long without knowing about case. Juror says doesn't watch news, prefers comedies, WWE. Baez asks about "The Nancy Grace Entertainment Show," and juror says he has not seen it. Though his mom watches it, she is mindful of his responsibility and has made sure he doesn't come through the room while such shows on TV.

Judge Perry is questioning the juror about death penalty. The juror is answering appropriately and agrees he can follow the law and the judge's instructions concerning the death penalty, LWOP and aggravating/mitigating factors.


This young man (21 yrs old) seems intelligent, honest and fair. I think he'd be a good juror.

Ashton asks the juror if he feels he has the life experience to make this kind of solemn decision. Juror says he feels life experience is irrelevant because they're supposed to make decision based only on the facts. Ashton points out in second phase (penalty), jurors are allowed to take life experience into account in making a decision. Juror agrees that if facts and law warrant it, he can vote for death penalty.

Ann Finnell for defense. On scale of 1-10, juror says he is somewhere in the middle. Believes it should be used when necessary, when facts and evidence warrant it. Jury wouldn't be swayed from conscientious belief, can be quite "bull-headed" about it; wouldn't try to sway anyone else.

Juror does not think mercy should factor; does not believe in "eye for an eye." Juror says he can consider things in person's character/background as mitigators. Juror would like to hear defendant testify during guilt phase, but wouldn't hold it against them if they didn't. Same for penalty phase. Agrees not to let victim impact statements affect his decisions

Judge calls a 5-minute recess.

Juror has no qualms about cameras in the courtroom. He is a sales associate at Sears; has worked there since high school. He is going for his associate's degree at Valencia, then transfer to UFC for performing arts degree. Wants to be a drama teacher. He has auditioned for commercials but hasn't gotten any. Love of acting began in grade school; has been in stage productions, last one in 2008.

Juror's dad has been disabled for about 15 yrs. He was a former steel worker and race car driver. His dad lives in Orlando. Juror has eaten at restaurants in Disney theme park; has never been to any nightclubs in the area.

Juror says LE testimony should have same weight as anyone else. Denies ever having made comments about LE. George confronts with Twitter comment juror made that "Florida police are idiots." His car was damaged and police didn't respond. He was upset over that. Was just frustrated and didn't mean it, he says.

Baez: "Who are you?" Juror says he's an actor, creative, learning to play musical interests; like wrestling, Harry Potter, travel, restaurants, trying different foods. Says he is mostly a guts-and-emotions vs. analytical person.

Baez explains each element of a crime must be proven or a person must be found not guilty. Juror understands, says he will follow judge's instruction in that regard. Ditto for lesser included offenses and not having to vote guilty on all, but each individually.

Judge will instruct defendant doesn't have to testify against herself, Baez says. Juror says he can follow that instruction.

State challenges the juror for cause. Judge denies. State uses peremptory. Defense asks for a Batson challenge as it relates to age. (I thought that was a race-based challenge...guess it's age, too.) The judge denies the Batson challenge and allows the state's peremptory strike. The juror is excused.

Moving on to Juror #1429 now. She is retired, saw mention of the case (missing child, body found, Anthony arrested), but doesn't recall details. Gets most of her news from St. Pete Times and Channel 9. Doesn't like the Nancy Grace or Geraldo shows. Has not formed an opinion about guilt. Does not own a computer.

The juror says she can be fair to both sides and apply the law and instructions the judge gives her in arriving at her decisions.

Ashton asks her if she feels in her heart and head that if facts and law call for it, she could raise her hand to vote for the person she's watched for several weeks to be put to death. Juror says she can.

Finnell discusses penalty phase with juror. Juror understands there are only two penalty options for first degree murder - DP and LWOP. (She likes to emphasize with DP that defendant will remain in prison until a lethal injection is put in her arm to kill her...trying to scare jurors off the DP by basically calling them murderers, in my opinion...but in fairness, it's her job to do that.)

Juror is not very religious, has no political stance on DP. Juror says she is capable of making an independent opinion about the penalty; won't be swayed or try to sway anyone from conscientious decision. Juror agrees that she could consider mercy and each mitigator Finnell ticks off. No problem with psych professionals that might influence her view of their testimony. Understands and wouldn't hold against someone for not testifying or maintaining innocence.

General voir dire by Ashton. Juror has had various jobs, including filling vending machines, driving catering trucks, being a nurse's aid. She's retired, goes to the gym or works in yard. Lives with boyfriend. Likes to read mysteries, comedies.

Juror's son arrested for bad check; grandson arrested for selling drugs. Has two other children, both daughters - one is teacher in La., other is a Lt.Col. in the military. Three grandchildren, never lived with her.

Ashton asks if she was arrested back in 1998 for DUI. Juror says she was arrested, but it was a mistake, she wasn't convicted. She hadn't listed that on her juror questionnaire.

Baez asks, "Who are you?" and she replies, "I'm retired...don't know what else to say." Her boyfriend is a retired plumber. She agrees to preserve the presumption of innocence for Anthony during trial and not to hold it against her if she doesn't testify.

Judge asks her to step outside. No challenges. She is the 11th juror retained.

Juror 1311 brings in a hardship letter. He is the fellow whose family owns an Ace Hardware dealership. After his dad's illness, he become responsible for running basically all the operations. The defense objected the first time around to his release. This time they didn't. Juror is excused.

Brief recess.

Juror 1119 will be the last juror today. The other two who were still here from today's groups agreed to come back in first thing Monday. This juror has seen online headlines in paper, brief blurbs on TV; has not watched Grace, Rivera, 48 hrs, etc. Discussed case some back when it first broke, but can't recall specifics, probably just "Did you hear about this" type of thing.

Has heard others discuss who have expressed opinions of guilt. Most have been opinions of guilt. His opinion is also that she is likely guilty. Juror says he presumes her innocent, though, and will follow evidence and law. State has no questions.

We hear from Cheney Mason for the first time today. He says most of the discussion has been with coworkers. He says that in the week he's been sitting in the jury room, he's thought a lot about the judge's instruction regarding presumption of innocence. He says if he were sitting on that side of the courtroom, he'd want to be presumed innocent also.

Juror says he doesn't have a "for" or "against" position on death penalty. The judge is instructing about mitigation/aggravating factors and DP vs. LWOP. Don't think this (seemingly) highly intelligent juror will have a problem grasping the concepts. And he doesn't. State passes on DP questioning with him.

Ann Finnell is going through her list of explanations/questions with the juror. He agrees so far to follow law in all instances. Juror tells Finnell that the judge's opening instructions Monday about the death penalty really brought home the solemnity of the process and he's thought much about it since.

Juror would not relinquish his conscientious decision nor sway anyone else from theirs. Media will not influence him. Will only consider aggravators if proven; would weigh evidence of mitigators as instructed.

Defendant doesn't know if he'd consider mercy. Prior to Monday, might have been an eye for an eye type person, but not since he's contemplated everything this week. Juror agrees (after clarification) that he can consider mitigators she lists. No issue with psych professionals.

Won't hold it against Anthony if she doesn't testify in either phase. If she did testify and maintained her innocence, he would not hold her maintaining innocence against her. Won't consider victim impact statements in making decisions.

General voir dire. Drane-Burdick for state. Juror is 43, married 21 yrs, 2 daughters. Drives truck for boat manufacturer. Sibling was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. He says there's nothing about that he can't set aside for this case.

Has traveled to Orlando many times. Was there a couple of weeks ago (work-related). Has no experience with computer work or police dogs. State is done.

Cheney Mason again for defense. Asks juror if there might be peer pressure from coworkers, friends if he voted not guilty. Juror says if there were, he'd tell them to mind their own business.

Masons asks if he can assure court he will follow the precept that it's better to let a guilty person go than convict and innocent person. Juror says he is capable of following the law and evidence and what the judge tells him.

On TV, watches mainly Discovery, Natural Geographic, shows of that nature. Has never been involved in any sort of lawsuit.

Juror does not want to be on this jury (time from family, isolation), he says but will serve if selected.  Juror is not challenged. He becomes the 12th retained juror.

Court is in recess until 8:30 Monday morning. Have a good one, folks!