Oh boy. A hearing took place regarding juror number one. It was really hard to discern ahead of time what this was likely to be like because all the online yip yap is being done by lawyers who, right from the start, were on the plaintiff side, and all they do is poo poo every single thing the defense does and says. And then when I see it for myself in the courtroom I can see that their opinions are highly biased and don't comport with what I actually see in the courtroom.
I have only just begun listening to a recording of this morning's hearing, and already I see that I believe the defense has more legitimate issues with juror number one than what has been represented by numerous lawyers online. So, once again, this case just absolutely reeks with a level of bias I have not witnessed in any other case I have watched. You always see a little bit of bias in some individuals here and there, that is normal. But this case is just insane.
So, here is what I have heard so far.
Ethan Shapiro has presented three sets of issues with juror number one, two of which have to do with what sound like very relevant omissions on his juror questionnaire.
One question had to do with ever being involved in any criminal investigation regardless of which side. He indicated he had not. However, the defense found that he and his wife had made allegations that his step son had attempted to murder them. There was an investigation, they made numerous statements and wanted him to be charged.
Another question on the jury questions had to do with had they ever been involved in any allegation of child abuse. The juror indicated no. However, it was found that he had been accused of child abuse by his former wife and their child and served with an injunction/restraining order whre he was nto allowed to get anywhere near the child. The judge interrupted and said "you mean 20 years ago?"
As if the fact that it happened 20 years ago would have made a difference. Of course the defense would have used one of their preemptory strikes to remove him from the jury no matter how long ago. Particularly because he was on the receiving end of child abuse allegations and Beata had been suspected of child abuse.
The third issue was one that all the YouTube lawyers are rolling their eyes about. Of course, I only heard their opinions so I had no idea that this really does have at least some basis to question, in my opinion. It has to do with the juror using "Nazi style "S" letters (only in Sally Smith's name) the day that Sally Smith testified. In all his questions, of which had had many every single day, he had written the letter "s" with normal "curves", the way most people write the letter "S". However, the night before Sally Smith testified, the plaintiff lawyer gave one of his typical press conferences that he gave pretty much every day after the trial. He referred to the fact that Sally Smith was going to testify the following day and that she had conducted "Nuremberg tribunals" against Beata. The next day when juror number one wrote his questions, he used Sally Smith's name and he wrote the S" with the sharp angles that you often see in "Nazi" style lettering. He had never done that before, and all the other s' in the same sentence looked normal with curvy "s" letters, only Sally Smith's name was written with lettering that looked like "Nazi" lettering. Of course, his wife was referring to Sally Smith as a "Nazi" in her daily online rantings against the defense on that same day.
There is much more. but I have to finish listening. Also, looking for a better feed, this one had a few times it "timed out" and some of Shapiro's arguments got lost. I want to see if I can find a good feed that has everything he was saying.
I don't expect this to go anywhere with this particular judge. I think he is biased enough for a reasonable person to see, but I think he also is smart enough to stay on this side of the law as far as anything coming of it. Although taking away the defense's actual defense (massive evidence of MBP) while allowing the plaintiff to rant on and on and on about the hospital and other doctors accusing poor Beata of MBP. The plaintiff was allowed to make a huge issue of MBP and the defense hands were totally tied and they were forbidden to put any evidence on in any way to suggest why they suspected MBP was an issue here. According to the judge giving the jury an instruction that "the defense has immunity for making a call to the hotline" was enough.
More later.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall