Yes, I was familiar with her prior to this event.
4 Likes
So does anyone know if the jury selection process will be available to watch online tomorrow? It would be interesting to see what sort of questions they ask of the potential jurors.
3 Likes
I’ve been in several jury selections and actually was chosen once.
According to the state there are differences so I’ll do a generic version. This interview of a potential jurors is called voir dire (My Cousin Vinny Marissa Tomei questions about auto mechanics was a voir dire as to her ability to serve as an automotive expert witness)
Have you or anyone in your family ever been the victim of a violent crime?
Do you own guns?
Do you ride horses?
Do you or anyone in your family suffer from mental illness?
Have you or anyone close to you ever suffer from addiction?
Have you or anyone in your family ever been involved in a domestic violence situation?
Are you a landlord or tenant?
Do you follow Olympic sport?
Have you seen any news about this event?
Have you read or engaged in any social media about this event?
The attorneys are trying to weed out those who may have some sort of a bias. But they are limited as to how many potential jurors they can run through. As such each side gets a certain number of “challenges”. There are 2 types of challenges: Challenges for Cause and Peremptory Challenges.
For ease I’ve copied and pasted this
“For Cause” Challenges
Each attorney has an unlimited number of “for cause” challenges which are, as the term suggests, based on a specified reason or “cause” to challenge the prospective juror. A prospective juror may be challenged for cause because of:
- exposure to pretrial publicity about the case,
- a connection with a party, an attorney, the judge, or a witness in the case
- experience as a victim of a crime that is similar to that being tried
- a religious prohibition on imposing a sentence or otherwise fulfilling his or her role, or
- gender, race, or other bias.
When an attorney wants to challenge a juror for cause, they must state to the court the reason for that challenge. Even though the number of such challenges is unlimited, attorneys do not generally exercise very many because of the difficulty of accusing a prospective juror of bias or other incompetency to serve.
The remaining jurors might resent the attorney for making a for-cause challenge, and the judge may even refuse to excuse the juror (if he or she is not persuaded that cause exists). In either case, the harm to the attorney’s client might outweigh the harm of keeping the person on the panel.
Peremptory Challenges
A “peremptory” challenge is one that is made without having to state a reason (without cause). Because the attorneys for each party may make peremptory challenges without justifying them, court rules limit the number of peremptory challenges to a handful for each side. In federal criminal trials, the number of peremptory challenges allowed is ten for the defendant and six for the prosecution in a felony case, 20 for each side in a death penalty case, and three for each side in a misdemeanor case (Fed. R. Crim. P. 24.) (In a civil case, federal rules allow each side three peremptory challenges. (28 U.S.C. § 1870.))
Prohibited Peremptory Challenges
Although no reason must be given for exercising a peremptory challenge, an attorney’s use of the challenge cannot be motivated by bias. If, for example, a defense attorney believes the prosecution is using peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors or women jurors, the prosecutor will need to show a race- or gender-neutral reason for the challenge.
In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor’s peremptory challenges of African-American prospective jurors based on their race violated the prospective jurors’ Equal Protection rights under the Constitution. ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).) The Court reasoned that challenging a juror based on his or her race, because the attorney believes the juror could not be impartial to a defendant of the same race, assumes that people of a certain race cannot be unbiased. This assumption violated the challenged jurors’ Equal Protection rights.
In 1991, the Court held that the constitutional prohibition on peremptory challenges based on race also applied in civil cases. ( Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991).) In 1994, the Court held that the same constitutional reasoning barred peremptory challenges based on gender. ( J.E.B. v. Alabama , 511 U.S. 127 (1994).)
Jury Consultants and Focus Groups
In addition to voir dire, attorneys for each side may turn to certain research and survey tools to test how sympathetic the jury pool in their area would be to their client’s case. Some lawyers hire jury consultants, who often have detailed demographic information for a prospective jury pool. These consultants often also attend voir dire and advise the attorney who hired them during that process.
Some attorneys present portions of their case to focus groups of randomly selected area residents to see how people respond. Others present their cases to colleagues in mock trials to obtain feedback as to how jurors might respond to their presentation of evidence and their closing arguments.
**In a law movie I believe with Keanu Reeves his lawyer specialty was chosing juries and he had a reputation for chosing excellently and was often hired just for that purpose.
9 Likes
And the TV series, “Bull”.
5 Likes
“Other identified sources of law?” There’s a saying, “the law is the law.” I therefore feel compelled to ask, to what “other sources,” OF LAW, are you referring? There are literally two types of general law wrt to criminal and civil proceedings. Substantiative/penal & Procedural. They are all “sourced” from the same places! Precedents & penal code from state to state & constitutional, mostly including stare decicis (SCOTUS ruling.) But, please…… enlighten me. Is the “other source,” of law in which you speak, found in the same store Jack bought his beanstalk beans? AFAF.
Every single accusation of posts you people claim I’ve made, have been wrong. When you’re called out, you move the goal post. Hi Cutter! I almost forgot you existed …… but here you are! Ya know, when I read your username it feels kinda threatening. “Cutter?” Like, do you go around cutting people when they don’t agree with you? What do you do with them afterwards? Scary stuff!
2 Likes
Projection.
15 Likes
Actually, each state has their own set of laws and books. They have similarities and they have differences.
17 Likes
QFP.
6 Likes
Stare decisis: to stand by that which is decided.
The commentary to Rule 901(b)(4) observes " [t]he characteristics of the offered item itself, considered in the light of circumstances, afford authentication techniques in great variety," including authenticating an exhibit by showing that it came from a " particular person by virtue of its disclosing knowledge of facts known peculiarly to him," or authenticating " by content and circumstances indicating it was in reply to a duly authenticated" document. FED.R.EVID. 901(b)(4) advisory committee’s note. Use of this rule often is characterized as authentication solely by " circumstantial evidence." WEINSTEIN at § 901.03[8]. Courts have recognized this rule as a means to authenticate ESI, including e-mail, text messages and the content of websites. See United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir.2000) (allowing the authentication of an e-mail entirely by circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the defendant’s work e-mail address, content of which the defendant was familiar with, use of the defendant’s nickname, and testimony by witnesses that the defendant spoke to them about the subjects contained in the e-mail); Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d at 40 (same result regarding e-mail); In re F.P., 878 A.2d at 94 (noting that authentication could be accomplished by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both, but ultimately holding that transcripts of instant messaging conversation circumstantially were authenticated based on presence of defendant’s screen name, use of defendant’s first name, and content of threatening message, which other witnesses had corroborated); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1153-54 (C.D.Cal.2002) (admitting website postings as evidence due to circumstantial indicia of authenticity, including dates and presence of identifying web addresses).
Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co. , 241 F.R.D. 534, 546 (D. Md. 2007)
9 Likes
I will say this @La-LaPopRider. At the very least, I can understand the concept of a unit of measurement and the concept of a mile, which in another thread you were unable to wrap your head around.
People have proven you wrong time and time again, as well as pointed out your outright lies, such as telling all here that you had subpoenaed identities from COTH, and repeating that lie more than once.
Then you deflect, just as you will do with this post. It says much more about you than it does me.
So you assume IM is an irrefutable source of legal information? There are much more foundational resources than IM. Please excuse the rest of us as we will go with those over yours.
Based on your lack of ability to understand basic concepts taught in elementary school, as well as your questionable honesty, we can most definitely find more reliable sources.
25 Likes
Exactly. Stare decisis literally means “let the decision stand.” It is applied to SCOTUS rulings as those rulings then become “law of the land.” Since SCOTUS rulings only pertain to matters of constitutional law & the Court is only the last line of “defense,” for appeal, the decision “stands.” At least, until it is challenged to decide on a new precedent- thereby changing the previously ruled decision.
Having said that- I have absolutely no idea how anything you just stated has anything to do with cutters assertion that basically, “law can be found by “other identified sources of law.” That simply makes zero sense, but I’m not at all surprised by that.
1 Like
QFP.
1 Like
Based on your own story, post 70 That’s a Twist, 911 was called late to the game, after you got shot. News reports list the time of your call as 2 minutes before the cops arrive. Since you are now claiming 911 was part of a conference call from the start….were you lying then or are you lying now? That 911 call will sure be interesting. I wonder how the timing will all match up once things come out under oath and all the sources are compared to one another.
20 Likes
That is pretty darn close to a direct quote from the movie I mentioned upthread, Witness for the Prosecution.
Thanks to all for the useful information on the details of the legal system.
So does anyone know the answer to my question about whether the jury selection will be available to watch online tomorrow?
3 Likes
Yeah, you are right. I do - excuse me, WE do wonder, to this day, what Michael planned to do with our bodies after he murdered us. We have a few pretty good ideas of his others’ plans for that, based upon information…… and belief.
And, to whomever asked who is funding mb, let’s just say, it will come out. And, when it does, the main donors may have to explain the giant conflict of interest there. Imagine the scandal it might present, if one of “developing dressage’s” main donors were also were also involved in funding the defense of a once relevant Dressage trainer’s attempted murder trial. If, for example, a particular donor hand picked MB as “coach,” for one of their sponsees who spent a year or two being “coached,” by him before going to Olympics - that donor maybe more interested in keeping their own name/s “untainted,” rather than simply remaining “neutral.” In the end, if ALL is brought to light, this scenario may end up causing far more questions for USEF and where each penny “donated,” to such for “dressage,” (even though USEF is oversight for almost all disciplines) by the donors to which I’m referring, is really going - and to whom it has have ever been appropriated & why.
While Eggbutt will have you believe “they believe in him 100%,” a very large group of others firmly believe that it is their own hide they’re attempting to protect & has little to do with MB. Except for the unfortunate fact, he is who they chose as a coach for someone- and it may not reflect upon them very positively to have said coach in jail for attempted murder. Just, ya know…… speculation n all.
@KellyS - yes Eggbutt and I have history. She and her daughter were offended I didn’t find their barn suitable to board my horses- They accused me of “promising,” them I would definitely board there, even though I only entertained the discussion. When I chose my barn & trainer- a Paralympian- the first question they (Eggbutt & co) asked me was this: “Who has (insert Paralympian trainer name) ever produced as a successful rider?” I secretly wondered to myself “who has EGGBUTT and daughter ever produced as ‘successful rider or horse?” Anyway, they continued to harass me sporadically but repeatedly - for perceived sleights which were figments of their own imaginations. Anyone is welcome to check their rider/horse “success rate,” on his/her own time. (Below)
Again, these two posts were posted by Eggbutt herself- ON THIS FORUM. It is not a violation of Coth TOS to use a post posted here, by the very person who posted it originally, especially, if she herself decided to openly provide her identity. A @Moderator_1 on tech help specifically answered this question and that too is screenshot. I or someone else will be happy to post that exchange right here, if it becomes necessary. Hope this answers as much as possible- and lends some understanding to the obsessive Eggbutt crusade…… Personally, I think EB should just move on with life. I have. In 2015. Perhaps it’s time for Eggbutt to let it TF go. It’s entering into psychotic stalker territory. But, hey…… if I’m that charming……I’ll take it as a compliment.
5 Likes
QFP.
4 Likes
Of course! And not even 1 min later. Wonder why that could be? Jk. I wonder nothing.
1 Like
Your screen is broken.
12 Likes
Really?
QFP.
