The district court did not clearly err in finding that Juror 9 could be fair and impartial. After hearing her answers to its questions, the district court “believe[d] her when she said that she would be fair.” ... Furthermore, the district court took measures to allay Juror 9’s fears by explaining that the case had nothing to do with terrorism and that her life was not in any danger. It reasonably found that this discussion “quelled” her concerns, especially because her concerns did not appear to be that serious to begin with. As soon as the district court started questioning her, Juror 9 confessed that she is “just paranoid.”Well, I guess if the juror was just paranoid, then we have nothing to worry about with the verdict of the "Arab, Muslim" defendant charged in a run of the mill identity theft case that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or terrorism.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
This is from the same court that wants to charge lawyers $100 to hear about the new civil rules.
ReplyDeleteSeems legit.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the problem? The standard has always been "fair, impartial, but no problem if scared and paranoid, so long as the court allays their fears a bit in a ten second exchange."
ReplyDeleteARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Do they ever say to themselves "would I want this juror on my case? Or my child's case?"
No. That's not the standard of review. Nor, apparently is being able to sleep at night after their decision.
I may be channeling my inner Scalia, but when I read the constitution I don't see "fair, impartial, fearful, paranoid juror."
There's a reason why our profession has a high rate of alcohol abuse.
Well said, Send it up.
ReplyDeleteRBG
CERT!
ReplyDelete