Those 85 jurors were from a much larger group who had filled out a 20-page questionnaire. Those questionnaires had all be gone through beginning on November 6, 2013, and most of the jurors who had reason to be dismissed had already been dismissed, along with jurors who needed to be excused for hardship. This preliminary screening help to make the jury selection go much more quickly than it otherwise would have.
Two jurors were called, but were not present. The judge directed the clerk to put out a warrant for each of them.
Eighteen people were called to start the jury selection process. Twelve were placed in the jury box and the other six sat in the court, in a row of chairs just in front of the jury box. The judge began by asking them the following questions:
1. Do you know anyone in the jury?
2. Do you believe that a police officer is just like any other witness, neither more nor less credible?
3. Do you understand the the accused is presumed innocent?
4. Do you understand that you can only consider the evidence that is presented during the trial?
Being a small town, several jurors new each other and the judge asked them if their relationship would influence their ability to come to a fair decision. There were no real close relationships and no jurors were dismissed for that reason.
Next, Joe Allison, the district attorney, asked:
1. Unlike CSI, not all evidence is tested. If a particular piece of evidence is not tested, can you still make a decision based on that piece of evidence?
2. Do you believe that people who experience an event--whether traumatic, pleasant, or neutral--will always remember that event perfectly?
3. How do you feel about tattletales or snitches?
4. What do you think about the tool that police officers sometimes use where they offer leniency to get information? Is that a valid tool?
These questions were very open-ended and generated quite a bit of discussion among the jurors. Mr. Allison was very personable and spoke individually to many of the jurors, by name.
Next, William Duncan, Patricia's attorney, asked the jurors:
1. When the trial begins, the prosecution will put on their case first. It is like a baseball game where the first team bats until they use up all 27 outs and then the other team comes to bat. Can you delay your decision about the case until you hear all the evidence?
2. The prosecution has the burden of proof. Ms. MacCallum shouldn't have to prove her innocence. Do you have a problem with that?
3. Ms. MacCallum does not have to testify and there are many reasons why she should or shouldn't. Do you understand that her lack of testimony doesn't have anything to do with her guilt or innocence?
4. Can leniency have an impact on testimony? Might someone who is receiving leniency fabricate evidence to get that leniency? Would such a person be motivated to lie? He used an example of someone owing a million dollars, who is allowed to only have to pay back 25 cents and how that kind of leniency might be a motivation to lie.
5. If someone who has been granted leniency changes her testimony over time and contradicts herself, doesn't that hurt her credibility? Perhaps the changes are being made because of the leniency she has received.
6. Do you understand that my client has a constitutional right to remain silent? Do any of you have a problem with our constitution? My client may choose to remain silent for many reasons, one of which is that the People did not present sufficient evidence so that there is no need for her to testify. If my client does not testify, that does not mean anything about her guilt or innocence. Does anyone have a problem with that?
7. Do you understand that you need to decide the case strictly on the evidence presented in this courtroom? You cannot use anything presented in the media. Does anyone have a problem following that instruction?
8. During deliberations, if you have a minority opinion about the case, can you stick to that minority opinion even if the other jurors believe otherwise?
9. Although the judge will instruct you further about this, do you understand the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?
10. During the trial there will be some unpleasant information presented. Can you listen to unpleasant information without it affecting your opinion about the defendant?
11. The word defendant is a rather negative word and it will be used throughout the trial. Can you listen to that word without letting it affect your opinion about my client?
12. In the news recently, there have been some defendants who have been found not guilty at their trials. (Implying that it would be ok for this jury to decide the same way in this trial.)
13. Do you think that the defense has an obligation to test all of the evidence?
Although he did speak directly to some jurors by name, Mr. Duncan addressed the jurors more as a group than individually. He seemed more aloof from them than Mr. Allison did.
Once all these questions had been asked, there was a brief discussion in chambers between the judge and the two attorneys. When they came back into the courtroom, they began to dismiss jurors. Mr. Allison went first, then Mr. Duncan, alternating back and forth. As jurors were dismissed from the jury box, jurors in front of the box were asked to fill those empty seats in the order they had originally been called. Once seven jurors had been dismissed, seven more jurors were called from the panel to fill the missing seats--the first in the jury box and other six in front.
Each of the attorneys had 20 preemptory dismissals they could use. That means that they could excuse a juror without giving a reason as to why. Typically they would say, "We would like to thank and excuse...", naming the juror by name.
The seven new jurors were addressed by name by the judge, Mr. Allison, and Mr. Duncan in turn. Each asked the new jurors if they had heard the original questions and the answers by the other jurors. They were then asked if they had something to say to the court regarding those questions. Some did, but most did not.
Again, there was a brief sidebar and then more preemptory dismissals by the two attorneys. This process went on through five groups of seven new jury members. As the day progress, it seemed that the questions by the attorneys became more perfunctory and were addressed to the new jurors as a whole, rather than individually. It was also obvious on several occasions that the attorneys asked specific questions about information a particular juror had provided on his/her questionnaire.
By my count:
- 6 jurors were dismissed by the judge for specific reasons
- 18 jurors were dismissed by Mr. Allison
- 19 jurors were dismissed by Mr. Duncan
- 5 men
- 7 women
- 11 white
- 1 black man
- Nearly all appear to be 40+ years of age
- 2 women appear to be 70+
- 4 alternates, all middle-age, white females
We had a nice visit with Mr. Allison afterwards and he discussed some of the things we can expect during the trial.
This evening, John and I drove up to the Caldera Brewery and Restaurant in Ashland. The food and the brews were excellent. In particular, I had a beer that had been brewed with coconut and chocolate. It tasted just like a Mounds bar. John shuddered each time I took a sip.
It was cold and clear this morning in Yreka. If you are planning to come up here, be sure to bring something to scrape the ice off your windshield in the morning.
From the Clerk's Docket and Minutes
9:00 - In chambers
9:30 - In session
9:40 - Jury enters the courtroom, James Patrick Biddle resumes testimony
10:30 - Recess
10:45 - In session
12:00 - Recess
1:35 - In session
3:00 - Recess
3:15 - In session
5:05 - Recess, jury selection complete
Last update: 11/14/13 - Return to the Patricia MacCallum trial home page
No comments:
Post a Comment