There seemed to be a lot more posturing going on between the prosecution and the defense for sure this time around. I liked how Mueller attacked Cohen’s closing from the prior trial, “there is nothing to fill, no jar, no box”. It was good to put that up front because it seems like it really made its way into the minds of the jurors in the last trial. I hope this case proceeds well.
Interesting info, Tony, especially the bit about candidate 152, and then how the alternates hear all the evidence live but jury deliberation must start over from the beginning when a juror is replaced by an alternate. Makes sense. You've given us a "You Are There" journalistic thrill. Thank you.
Juror 1: Woman. Sat on 2 cases, civil and criminal. Civil was medical malpractice in Santa Monica, about 20 years ago. Criminal was drugs, 15 years ago. Your significant other was former LAPA with Secret service? LAPD and secret service. Retired? Actually passed away suddenly in 2021. Anything about that would impact your ability to be fair? No. Judge asks if there are good and bad police. She agrees. And that police don't get any greater or lesser credibility? Judge reads witness list to see if they know anyone (and this is for the whole room). Fair and impartial? Yes.
Juror 11. Woman. What do you do in your job duties. Environmental health and safety. Make sure workers are wearing protective gear, train them on safety. Exposure to Scientology, general media. Anything specific to this case? No. Fair? Yes.
Juror 5: Man. What part of LA do you live in? Boyle Heights. Can you keep an open mind as it relates to sexual incidents? Yes. Do you think you can be fair and impartial? Yes.
Juror 8: Woman. You were on a civil case. For about an hour. Can you otherwise be fair? Yes.
Juror 9: Woman. As a registered nurse did you have expsoure to rape victims? No. And your ex partner, what did they do? Some kind of business (unclear). Civil case about ten years ago. Any knowledge about this case, you said you had seen something on local news. Did it go into great detail. She says it was something she heard in the background. Can still be fair.
Juror 10. Man. Criminal case: About 25 years ago, gang kidnapping. THe incident that happened 30 years ago, did that involve yourself? Myself. Traffic case. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 30. Man. Fair? Yes.
Juror 13. Woman. Works for City of LA. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 15. Woman. You work for an academic institution? Yes. Santa Monica College. Criminal case? About 12-13 years ago, bank robbery. Here in state court. You have some limited understanding about Scientology. Yes, just famous people. Fair? Yes. I have a job interview on Friday.
Juror 20. Man. Significant other is a payroll clerk. For? DWP. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 23. Man. IT support for LAUSD. No familiarity with Scientology, just aware of its existence. Just their general presence in Hollywood. Fair? Yes.
Juror 41. Woman. Social work, clientele? Individuals with health issues. Fair? Yes. Ever dealt with victims of rape? No.
That’s an interesting question, but only picking the first 100 is kind of misleading. Judge Olmedo announced before the attorneys even started questioning that they were down to 107, so they had dismissed about half the jury pool before the attorneys even got a chance to reject anyone.
By the time they finished questioning and began their chance to issue “peremptory” (don’t have to give a reason, they just don’t want them-each attorney has a limited number of these), they were done to only 86 potential jurors, and after peremptory challenges, they were down to only 81, which means there were only 61 jurors left, not hundreds of extras.
They have to start with a large number to ensure they don’t run out of potential jurors before a panel is seated.
Oops! I didn’t include the alternates, there were 10 more peremptory challenges there, leaving only 51 extra jurors. They got up to juror number 94 when seating alternates.
Fantastic!! Man, they burned through this:
Great job!! Love to you, Tony...keep up the excellent work! 🌹🌠
There seemed to be a lot more posturing going on between the prosecution and the defense for sure this time around. I liked how Mueller attacked Cohen’s closing from the prior trial, “there is nothing to fill, no jar, no box”. It was good to put that up front because it seems like it really made its way into the minds of the jurors in the last trial. I hope this case proceeds well.
Dear Tony, You are my favorite reporter in this dimension. Keep up your valuable work.
Agree 100% Sylvia. Tony is my “go to” as well.
Margarita time! Thanks Tony!
Interesting info, Tony, especially the bit about candidate 152, and then how the alternates hear all the evidence live but jury deliberation must start over from the beginning when a juror is replaced by an alternate. Makes sense. You've given us a "You Are There" journalistic thrill. Thank you.
Tony is a Shining Star!
Thank you for all the hard hard work to bring me the stories of this trial. 💝
Juror 1: Woman. Sat on 2 cases, civil and criminal. Civil was medical malpractice in Santa Monica, about 20 years ago. Criminal was drugs, 15 years ago. Your significant other was former LAPA with Secret service? LAPD and secret service. Retired? Actually passed away suddenly in 2021. Anything about that would impact your ability to be fair? No. Judge asks if there are good and bad police. She agrees. And that police don't get any greater or lesser credibility? Judge reads witness list to see if they know anyone (and this is for the whole room). Fair and impartial? Yes.
Juror 11. Woman. What do you do in your job duties. Environmental health and safety. Make sure workers are wearing protective gear, train them on safety. Exposure to Scientology, general media. Anything specific to this case? No. Fair? Yes.
Juror 5: Man. What part of LA do you live in? Boyle Heights. Can you keep an open mind as it relates to sexual incidents? Yes. Do you think you can be fair and impartial? Yes.
Juror 8: Woman. You were on a civil case. For about an hour. Can you otherwise be fair? Yes.
Juror 9: Woman. As a registered nurse did you have expsoure to rape victims? No. And your ex partner, what did they do? Some kind of business (unclear). Civil case about ten years ago. Any knowledge about this case, you said you had seen something on local news. Did it go into great detail. She says it was something she heard in the background. Can still be fair.
Juror 10. Man. Criminal case: About 25 years ago, gang kidnapping. THe incident that happened 30 years ago, did that involve yourself? Myself. Traffic case. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 30. Man. Fair? Yes.
Juror 13. Woman. Works for City of LA. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 15. Woman. You work for an academic institution? Yes. Santa Monica College. Criminal case? About 12-13 years ago, bank robbery. Here in state court. You have some limited understanding about Scientology. Yes, just famous people. Fair? Yes. I have a job interview on Friday.
Juror 20. Man. Significant other is a payroll clerk. For? DWP. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 23. Man. IT support for LAUSD. No familiarity with Scientology, just aware of its existence. Just their general presence in Hollywood. Fair? Yes.
Juror 41. Woman. Social work, clientele? Individuals with health issues. Fair? Yes. Ever dealt with victims of rape? No.
If only the first 100 potential jurors have a chance of being selected, why do they start with more than that?
That’s an interesting question, but only picking the first 100 is kind of misleading. Judge Olmedo announced before the attorneys even started questioning that they were down to 107, so they had dismissed about half the jury pool before the attorneys even got a chance to reject anyone.
By the time they finished questioning and began their chance to issue “peremptory” (don’t have to give a reason, they just don’t want them-each attorney has a limited number of these), they were done to only 86 potential jurors, and after peremptory challenges, they were down to only 81, which means there were only 61 jurors left, not hundreds of extras.
They have to start with a large number to ensure they don’t run out of potential jurors before a panel is seated.
Oops! I didn’t include the alternates, there were 10 more peremptory challenges there, leaving only 51 extra jurors. They got up to juror number 94 when seating alternates.
Just to be safe, I suspect.