Flutterby™! : And with the last peremptory challenge

And with the last peremptory challenge

2012-04-16 23:46:09.859972+00 by Dan Lyke 2 comments

And with the last peremptory challenge of the day, the People thanked and excused juror #116

comments in descending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2012-04-17 20:03:32.975759+00 by: petronius

We had a small flap over jurys in Chicago recently in the trail for the guy accused of murdering American Idol star/oscar winner Jennifer Hudson's mother, brother and 7 year-old nephew. The judge's questionaire asked, among other things, if the potentials a)had ever watched American Idol; b)seen Hudson in Dreamgirls; or c) ever joined Weight Watchers, which employs Hudson as their spokesperson. Apparently he was trying to weed out rabid fans and sensation seekers. Considering the craziness of the Michael Jackson trial, perhaps we should thank him.

As it is, they got through selection pretty quickly, but now the issue is that the judge has prohibited reporters in the courtroom from sending Twitter updates to their readers. Does the constitutional right of a public trial mean it has to be done 140 characters at a time?

#Comment Re: made: 2012-04-17 17:08:41.5955+00 by: Dan Lyke

For my journal-ish use later:

• The defendant is a taxi driver.
• The defendant was using a translator.
• The charge was something like "sexual assault", and was described at one point as unwanted touching of the breasts, and, perhaps, touching underneath the belt.
• The repeated jury questions involved whether alcohol use might cause us to view an accusation as less credible, how jurors in customer facing jobs might deal with unhappy customers, and whether the defendant not taking the stand in his own defense might be incriminating, and whether a delay in reporting the assault would impugn the credibility of the prosecution's witness.
• The DA explicitly said he didn't want "engineer types" because the grey areas around "reasonable doubt" were grey.

The easy ones don't make trial. From a justice standpoing, I would have liked to have served on this one. From a "difficult decisions" standpoint, I'm glad to have been booted off.

At any rate, sounds like there are all sorts of confusing interesting questions that will be raised as that process continues.