Harvey Weinstein trial

for the sake of argument

From a previously supplied link, "Lawyers also ask questions meant to discover specialized knowledge that could cause a juror to rely on outside evidence. For example, imagine a case involving arson. Veteran firefighters may not make good jurors because they are likely refer to their own professional experience during deliberations, contrary to the rules requiring them to decide the case solely based on the evidence admitted at trial and the legal instructions given by the judge. Courts usually excuse potential jurors with backgrounds that could cause them to draw on their own training and experience during deliberations." My interpretation of this paragraph is that one wants jurors to decide on the basis of what is presented at the trial, not on the basis of what is not.

Juror 11 is writing a book and has reviewed a book. From The Observer: "Cheronis argued that this was in violation of the court order not to consume media related to the trial, and sought to have her replaced on the jury."

For the sake of argument, let us assume that juror 11 had been entirely truthful. These two facts still create a reasonable suspicion that juror 11 would bring outside information or strongly held personal views into her deliberations. On the basis that dismissing an acceptable juror is less serious than accepting a problematic one, she should have been let go, as my previous message also indicated. I do not yet have a strong opinion on whether or not her reviewing was in violation of the court order.
 
Last edited:
From a previously supplied link, "Lawyers also ask questions meant to discover specialized knowledge that could cause a juror to rely on outside evidence. For example, imagine a case involving arson. Veteran firefighters may not make good jurors because they are likely refer to their own professional experience during deliberations, contrary to the rules requiring them to decide the case solely based on the evidence admitted at trial and the legal instructions given by the judge. Courts usually excuse potential jurors with backgrounds that could cause them to draw on their own training and experience during deliberations." My interpretation of this paragraph is that one wants jurors to decide on the basis of what is presented at the trial, not on the basis of what is not.

You would need evidence to show that 11 had any of the highlighted. So far you have not.

Juror 11 is writing a book and has reviewed a book. From The Observer: "Cheronis argued that this was in violation of the court order not to consume media related to the trial, and sought to have her replaced on the jury."

And the judge, who presumably was as well informed on the facts and law as this forum, disagreed with that argument.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that juror 11 had been entirely truthful.

Wouldn't you first you need to show that she wasn't truthful in court?

That is a burden that you have not yet met. To move on assuming that you have met that burden is a bit presumptuous.
 
remember where you are

Wouldn't you first you need to show that she wasn't truthful in court?

That is a burden that you have not yet met. To move on assuming that you have met that burden is a bit presumptuous.
No, I would not. It is you that are making presumptions that are false. I doubted that we will agree on the issue of truthfulness; therefore, I suggested a different argument, which you are free to accept or to rebut.

As far as what a court decided, its one item of evidence, but it is not more than that. This being the trials and errors section of a site that promotes skeptical thinking, we are allowed to consider the possibility that a court decided incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
No, I would not. It is you that are making presumptions that are false. I doubted that we will agree on the issue truthfulness; therefore, I suggested a different argument, which you are free to accept or to rebut.

OK, so what two facts still "create a reasonable suspicion that juror 11 would bring outside information or strongly held personal views into her deliberations" to an extent that it would be different from other jurors?

We all bring outside information and strongly held personal views into deliberations. It is on the defense to show that they rise to a level of prejudice or bias. And here they haven't.

And you have not shown that she had:

- specialized knowledge;
- professional experience; or
- training

that would have any impact on her ability to consider the evidence presented in a fair light.

As far as what a court decided, its one item of evidence, but it is not more than that. This being the trials and errors section of a site that promotes skeptical thinking, we are allowed to consider the possibility that a court decided incorrectly.

I was merely pointing out that we are working with few facts, while the judge was not.

My expectation is that we don't have more facts because the defense is not interested in you having more facts.
 
a question

An inconsistency between her statements in court and a pre-publication blurb on a website about her book are not enough. Sorry. Such inconsistencies could have many explanations beyond her lying in court.
What explanations, specifically?
 
hotcakes

ETA: *Correction: Her website has a quote from another author who has read the book, but the other author does not mention "predatory men" in her short review.

AETA: Prediction: This summer her book will be selling like hotcakes to online sleuths trying to prove she lied, but there will be no clear evidence that she did.
Suppose you were shown a review of the book from someone else that did mention predatory men. Would this change your opinion, and if so, how?
 
Suppose you were shown a review of the book from someone else that did mention predatory men. Would this change your opinion, and if so, how?

Probably not.

I would want to see the work itself and hear how she describes the men in the book. Because she was asked if she thought it dealt with predatory men, not what other people thought of it. She is only lying if she was writing about predatory men, not if others read predatory men into her writing.

Also, in the context of Weinstein, she could reasonably assume that "predatory men" has a sexual connotation while her works may not be talking about men who were sexually predatory.

This would be the inverse of the "death of the author" school of critique. In this case it does not matter what the audience thinks of the book, only the author.
 
OK, so what two facts still "create a reasonable suspicion that juror 11 would bring outside information or strongly held personal views into her deliberations" to an extent that it would be different from other jurors?

We all bring outside information and strongly held personal views into deliberations. It is on the defense to show that they rise to a level of prejudice or bias. And here they haven't.

And you have not shown that she had:

- specialized knowledge;
- professional experience; or
- training

that would have any impact on her ability to consider the evidence presented in a fair light.

Are you going to address this or just move on because it doesn't fit well into your narrative?
 
I prefer a good strong Earl Grey

And you have not shown that she had:

- specialized knowledge;
- professional experience; or
- training

that would have any impact on her ability to consider the evidence presented in a fair light.

I was not planning to address this argument because I thought it was pretty weak tea, but suit yourself. Her website identifies her as an "author," and I presume that she has been or will be paid for writing her novel.* That is a reasonable definition of professional experience. She has also done more than simply "read" someone else's book; she wrote a review, suggesting a careful reading.

*a previous comment of yours (#162) questioned whether or not the book had been written. Given that others have written about it, the answer would seem to be yes.
 
Last edited:
predation

The most obvious:
She is not the author of the website promoting the book and would not have used that language to describe her own work.
The website in question has her name on it and the phrase "predatory older men" is still there. If she did not write it and did not agree with it, then what is that particular verbiage doing there? Whoever wrote the other blurb that I found also used the word "predatory." I am sorry, but you have offered a strained argument.
 
I’ve read a bit more about the situation. Apparently, the defense did ask to have the juror removed for cause (they had already used all 20 preemptive strikes).

It appears the defense asked her to be removed because she failed to disclose information about the book on the questionnaire where it asked if she believed that there was anything else relevant that they should know and because she lied under oath.

The defense argued that the characterization she gave under oath is precisely what the book is about. It’s about parents and teenagers. The defense argued that the blurb merely states the women are "affected" by their sexual relationships with older men. The prosecution argued that the fact that she was writing a book that that has something to do with older men is something the court should know. The judge said, “But to her it is not about that. I accept her answers under oath in the courtroom.”

I think failure to mention the book in the “catch all” question amounts to nothing. (Noe that in the question about hobbies she said she writes novels.) It up to her whether she believes it is relevant or not. Maybe if someone failed to disclose something that was an obvious conflict or bias it would be relevant, but then the issue of omission would be moot because there would already be a reason to dismiss the juror.

The issue of lying under oath is perhaps problematic. While the blurb on the publisher’s website says the girls in the book are “are affected by their sexual relationships with older men” it also says they grapple with “predatory male teachers”. The blurb on her website uses the specific phrase “predatory older men”.

While she may feel that the book is about parents and teenagers, that wasn’t what she was asked. The prosecution asked if the book “has anything to do with” predatory older men. Her answer is in direct contradiction to the blurbs. The judge should have asked about that and not base the decision on what the author thinks the book is “about”.

(Note that there may be parts of the story missing. I have not been able to find a transcript, so it is very difficult to evaluate.)
 
Of course it's entirely feasible that the trial judge erred in law when he disallowed the defence's request to remove this woman for cause.

I would imagine that this might therefore form one of the two tests when the state appeals court decides whether or not some or all of the convictions in this case should go to full appeal. I'd suggest that these two tests are:

1) Is there a reasonable chance that the judge erred in NY State law when he refused the defence requests to remove this juror for cause, given what he knew at the time about the woman's book and her statements about it during voir dire?

2) Did the inclusion of this woman on the jury create the reasonable possibility of a poisoned jury - i.e. one whose deliberations and verdicts could reasonably have been improperly influenced by this woman's external experiences and biases?

And if the answer to one or both of the above is "yes", then I'd suggest that the defence might consequently be granted leave to appeal, so that a proper evaluation of these factors could take place.
 
I was merely pointing out that we are working with few facts, while the judge was not.

My expectation is that we don't have more facts because the defense is not interested in you having more facts.


It is possible that the judge was affected by the perception that the defence team was attempting to exclude white women from the jury. If that interpretation was salient, it could distract from focusing on the facts underlying objections to this specific juror.
 
Last edited:
I was not planning to address this argument because I thought it was pretty weak tea, but suit yourself. Her website identifies her as an "author," and I presume that she has been or will be paid for writing her novel.* That is a reasonable definition of professional experience. She has also done more than simply "read" someone else's book; she wrote a review, suggesting a careful reading.

*a previous comment of yours (#162) questioned whether or not the book had been written. Given that others have written about it, the answer would seem to be yes.

I'm not aware of any field that considers an untrained fiction novelist to have:

- specialized knowledge;
- professional experience; or
- training

in that field.

Your experience may vary.

But to equate her to a fireman dealing with an arson case is laughable. That would be akin to calling Robert Frost an expert in wall construction.
 
If you read something having the phrase "predatory male teachers" and "affected by their sexual relationships with older men," then you read the same one that I did.

I did not.

The website in question has her name on it and the phrase "predatory older men" is still there. If she did not write it and did not agree with it, then what is that particular verbiage doing there? Whoever wrote the other blurb that I found also used the word "predatory." I am sorry, but you have offered a strained argument.

I have not. People often have little control over how their products are marketed. She may even approve of the language even if it is not how she would characterize her work.
 
I’ve read a bit more about the situation. Apparently, the defense did ask to have the juror removed for cause (they had already used all 20 preemptive strikes).

It appears the defense asked her to be removed because she failed to disclose information about the book on the questionnaire where it asked if she believed that there was anything else relevant that they should know and because she lied under oath.

The defense argued that the characterization she gave under oath is precisely what the book is about. It’s about parents and teenagers. The defense argued that the blurb merely states the women are "affected" by their sexual relationships with older men. The prosecution argued that the fact that she was writing a book that that has something to do with older men is something the court should know. The judge said, “But to her it is not about that. I accept her answers under oath in the courtroom.”

I think failure to mention the book in the “catch all” question amounts to nothing. (Noe that in the question about hobbies she said she writes novels.) It up to her whether she believes it is relevant or not. Maybe if someone failed to disclose something that was an obvious conflict or bias it would be relevant, but then the issue of omission would be moot because there would already be a reason to dismiss the juror.

I always like seeing you post in these threads because I know you will take the time to research things and lay them out more clearly than I will. Thanks again.

The issue of lying under oath is perhaps problematic. While the blurb on the publisher’s website says the girls in the book are “are affected by their sexual relationships with older men” it also says they grapple with “predatory male teachers”. The blurb on her website uses the specific phrase “predatory older men”.

While she may feel that the book is about parents and teenagers, that wasn’t what she was asked. The prosecution asked if the book “has anything to do with” predatory older men. Her answer is in direct contradiction to the blurbs. The judge should have asked about that and not base the decision on what the author thinks the book is “about”.
(Note that there may be parts of the story missing. I have not been able to find a transcript, so it is very difficult to evaluate.)

I agree with the highlighted but, as you note, we simply don't know what happened at this point.

Did the defense miss the opportunity to make sure this was addressed or did the judge push them off of it? Did the judge dig in to this issue and decide that it wasn't a material difference? Or, as Elaedith suggested, was the judge so fed up with their attacks on young women that this one was allowed, warts and all?

I think this is at best a fringe case and likely within the discretion of the court.

But, remember that there is a core aspect of the justice system at issue here that is protected by the appeals process: billable hours.
 
Question: If W. gets a new trial on this basis, would the prosecution be restricted to the case they have already presented? Could they bring in more victims, more witnesses and press more charges?
 
Huh. I didn't realize this was something anyone needed help or guidance with.

I agree. But perhaps for some people it guides them to know who is still available to bring charges against, who showed remorse and who has already paid for their crime.

Still don't know why that would be need guidance. Perhaps I'm missing something.
 
....
Still don't know why that would be need guidance. Perhaps I'm missing something.


It's a list of many (certainly not all) of the celebrities who have suffered consequences from their sexual misconduct. It's way more than Cosby, Spacey and Weinberg.
 
It's a list of many (certainly not all) of the celebrities who have suffered consequences from their sexual misconduct. It's way more than Cosby, Spacey and Weinberg.

List is a little outdated in many ways.
For instance John Lassiter, founder and head of Pixar Studios, six months suspension became permanent;he is no longer head of Pixar.
 
The issue of lying under oath is perhaps problematic. While the blurb on the publisher’s website says the girls in the book are “are affected by their sexual relationships with older men” it also says they grapple with “predatory male teachers”. The blurb on her website uses the specific phrase “predatory older men”.

While she may feel that the book is about parents and teenagers, that wasn’t what she was asked. The prosecution asked if the book “has anything to do with” predatory older men. Her answer is in direct contradiction to the blurbs. The judge should have asked about that and not base the decision on what the author thinks the book is “about”.

(Note that there may be parts of the story missing. I have not been able to find a transcript, so it is very difficult to evaluate.)

The article I linked to before implies that she was evasive about reviewing books during the trial.
The claim was that she both posted a review of 'My Dark Vanessa' on a book review site (elsewhere identified as GoodReads), and at the same time posted that she was reading a French book, 'Le Consentement'.

"..“So, I understand that during the course of the trial, you reviewed some books online about various topics, about child abuse and predatory older men,” Burke said, noting that there was a review published about one week ago. She said that she posted about reading the French book Le Consentement, but “I don’t think I’ve reviewed it yet.”
“She apparently is simply reading the book, so the motion is denied,” Burke said of the defense’s request to boot juror No. 11." "

According to an update on Feb 19th there was a second attempt to have her discharged because her previous answers were not satisfactory.

" "Cheronis cited Burke’s statement to this juror Tuesday in which the judge said, “I understand that during the course of the trial you reviewed some books online.” “The juror said, ‘I have not,’” Cheronis said in court. “There was a review published within the last week or so. The juror said, ‘I don’t know what you mean.’”
“The initial answer that she hadn’t reviewed any books was not candid; moreover, the following colloquy with the court only dealt with the French book,” Cheronis said.
Burke stood by his decision not to boot juror No. 11, saying, “My finding is nonetheless that she just hasn’t done anything wrong.” "

It seems that whether she had or had not posted the review should be a simple thing to verify, but the judge declined to look into it further. I don't know how reliable this source is, and I can't find any other source that gives this detail about the review issue. If the source is accurate it implies another occasion where what she said in court was contradicted elsewhere. The judge was apparently unconcerned, despite the fact that 'she was only reading' was given previously as a reason for not dismissing her.
 
Last edited:
The article I linked to before implies that she was evasive about reviewing books during the trial.
The claim was that she both posted a review of 'My Dark Vanessa' on a book review site (elsewhere identified as GoodReads), and at the same time posted that she was reading a French book, 'Le Consentement'.

"..“So, I understand that during the course of the trial, you reviewed some books online about various topics, about child abuse and predatory older men,” Burke said, noting that there was a review published about one week ago. She said that she posted about reading the French book Le Consentement, but “I don’t think I’ve reviewed it yet.”
“She apparently is simply reading the book, so the motion is denied,” Burke said of the defense’s request to boot juror No. 11." "

According to an update on Feb 19th there was a second attempt to have her discharged because her previous answers were not satisfactory.

" "Cheronis cited Burke’s statement to this juror Tuesday in which the judge said, “I understand that during the course of the trial you reviewed some books online.” “The juror said, ‘I have not,’” Cheronis said in court. “There was a review published within the last week or so. The juror said, ‘I don’t know what you mean.’”
“The initial answer that she hadn’t reviewed any books was not candid; moreover, the following colloquy with the court only dealt with the French book,” Cheronis said.
Burke stood by his decision not to boot juror No. 11, saying, “My finding is nonetheless that she just hasn’t done anything wrong.” "

It seems that whether she had or had not posted the review should be a simple thing to verify, but the judge declined to look into it further. I don't know how reliable this source is, and I can't find any other source that gives this detail about the review issue. If the source is accurate it implies another occasion where what she said in court was contradicted elsewhere. The judge was apparently unconcerned, despite the fact that 'she was only reading' was given previously as a reason for not dismissing her.

Unless the book is about Harvey Weinstein or a training manual on how to determine if one is a sexual predator, I'm not really sure what the issue is. Everything we are discussing here is fiction and I can understand why the judge is not too excited about looking into the fiction she reads and writes.
 
Unless the book is about Harvey Weinstein or a training manual on how to determine if one is a sexual predator, I'm not really sure what the issue is. Everything we are discussing here is fiction and I can understand why the judge is not too excited about looking into the fiction she reads and writes.

I don't know whether or not reading, writing, and reviewing fiction with themes related to the trial constitutes a bias. I was curious about the fact that there were claims that she was being evasive on two different occasions. Whether or not a review was posted seems to be a straightforward question and not a matter of subjective judgement.
 
I don't know whether or not reading, writing, and reviewing fiction with themes related to the trial constitutes a bias. I was curious about the fact that there were claims that she was being evasive on two different occasions. Whether or not a review was posted seems to be a straightforward question and not a matter of subjective judgement.


Let's just note that a book "review" is no longer a thoughtful assessment by a university professor assigned by the New York Review of Books. Anybody who buys anything on Amazon can post a review. Whether we are happy or dissatisfied with a service, we can post a review on Yelp and a lot of other places. The question here is where did her reviews appear, and was she recognized as enough of an expert for someone to pay her for her work? If she's just reading books and posting her thoughts about them on-line, so what?
 
Let's just note that a book "review" is no longer a thoughtful assessment by a university professor assigned by the New York Review of Books. Anybody who buys anything on Amazon can post a review. Whether we are happy or dissatisfied with a service, we can post a review on Yelp and a lot of other places. The question here is where did her reviews appear, and was she recognized as enough of an expert for someone to pay her for her work? If she's just reading books and posting her thoughts about them on-line, so what?

Are you saying it doesn't matter whether or not a juror was being deceptive/evasive, if the thing they were possibly being evasive about doesn't actually matter?
 
Last edited:
Are you saying it doesn't matter whether or not a juror was being deceptive/evasive, if the thing they were possibly being evasive about doesn't actually matter?

I think it depends on exactly what she was asked. From the link it's not clear what book they thought she was "reading" and what they thought she had "reviewed." I also think it's relevant that the defense excluded as many young women from the jury as it could, and wanted to replace this young woman with a man. It's not like their perspective is objective. According to the report, they also claimed that reading fiction was a violation of the prohibition about consuming "media" about the trial, which is a big stretch.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on exactly what she was asked. From the link it's not clear what book they thought she was "reading" and what they thought she had "reviewed."
I thought it was implied that the defence knew, but the judge relied on her answers, which only mentioned the one she was reading.
I also think it's relevant that the defense excluded as many young women from the jury as it could, and wanted to replace this young woman with a man. It's not like their perspective is objective. According to the report, they also claimed that reading fiction was a violation of the prohibition about consuming "media" about the trial, which is a big stretch.

One interpretation is that the defence were making up reasons to get women off the jury. I also heard a claim that they were trying to keep white women off the jury specifically, presumably due to identification with the accusers. I don't know if that's true, and I'm not convinced that would be a good strategy if it were true.

An alternative interpretation as I said before is that the judge was worried about the accusations they were doing this and therefore didn't pay enough attention to the concerns about the juror. I guess we won't know unless further information comes up on appeal.
 
a matter of definition

I posted some of the attorney's questions and juror 11's answers in comment #151. She said in part, "...but it’s not a predatory situation at all." One reader of the novel wrote a summary, which reads in part, " But Justine and Eve are stuck at Griswold Academy, a Connecticut boarding school...Despite their differences, they form a deep friendship, together grappling with drugs, alcohol, ill-fated crushes, and predatory male teachers. After a tumultuous school year, Eve and Justine spend the summer in New York City where they join Eve's childhood friend India. Justine moves into India's Hell's Kitchen apartment and is pulled further into her friends' glamorous lives. Eve, under her parents' ever-watchful eye, interns at a SoHo art gallery and navigates the unpredictable whims of her boss. India struggles to resist the advances of a famous artist represented by the gallery. All three are affected by their sexual relationships with older men and the power adults hold over them, even as the young women begin to assert their independence."

If juror 11 had said that there were predatory relationships but that they were not the focus of the novel, I might accept that. However, relationships between adult teachers and preparatory school students fits my definition of predatory. YMMV.
 
"The same juror wrote her own novel about young women and “predatory” older men. The defense had tried to exclude her from the jury before the trial began." Reuters. CNN also covered the story surrounding this juror. I am not sure why the judge did not agree to strike this juror with cause, and the defense did not have any other peremptory challenges. I would not be surprised to see an appeal that raised this issue.
EDT
"'If a juror can be shown to be biased, who lied, maybe, during voir dire, that certainly is a place that might be a reversible error,' [Bennett] Gershman said." Reuters, via NYT.
This is, as I'm sure you're well aware, a non-issue already dealt wity.
 
courts of appeal

This link implies that it is difficult to win an appeal when a juror was not dismissed for cause.

"In People v. Hilihouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 488-489, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, the defendant's challenge for cause was to a juror who had read about the case in the newspapers and believed, "the defendant is guilty, it's a matter only of first and second degree." He also was friends with the prosecution's investigator in the case. The Supreme Court, however, noted that in other responses, the prospective juror made clear that he understood that he had to base his decision on the evidence at trial, rather than what he read in newspapers, and he had stated, "he would try to be impartial." He also said that if asked today, he would say the defendant was guilty, but he would listen to conflicting information that was provided. The California Supreme Court declined to interfere with the trial court's finding that the juror was impartial.
In People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 91 CaLRptr.2d 623, three prospective jurors preliminarily stated that they distrusted defendants who elected not to testify. They eventually affirmed their ability to follow the law and give the defendant a fair trial. The Supreme Court stated that it would defer to the trial court's findings that the jurors were impartial."
 
sufficient versus necessary

It may be different this time, as soon as they can prove "fiction writer" is professional experience in any field other than writing.
"When a potential juror has had a life experience closely resembling the facts of the case, that person will likely be excused by the court.

Lawyers also ask questions meant to discover specialized knowledge that could cause a juror to rely on outside evidence. Link.

Based in this and the other information found at this site, certain professional experience is sufficient to excuse a potential juror, but nothing in the quote above indicates that professional experience is necessary for a person to be excused. That may be your interpretation, but you have not supplied evidence to support it.
 
"When a potential juror has had a life experience closely resembling the facts of the case, that person will likely be excused by the court.

Lawyers also ask questions meant to discover specialized knowledge that could cause a juror to rely on outside evidence. Link.

Based in this and the other information found at this site, certain professional experience is sufficient to excuse a potential juror, but nothing in the quote above indicates that professional experience is necessary for a person to be excused. That may be your interpretation, but you have not supplied evidence to support it.

I was going by your prior assertions. You have not provided any evidence that she has had a life experience closely resembling the facts, specialized knowledge, outside evidence to rely on, or anything else that would rise to the level you are trying to assert.

All you have is that she wrote a fictional novel. That does not require any of the things you have covered.

In fact she may just follow some version of this advice:

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
 
This link implies that it is difficult to win an appeal when a juror was not dismissed for cause.

That's true. Appeals over juror disqualification are common and are rarely successful. Appellate courts are rightly hesitant to overturn convictions over this issue for a number of reasons.

1. Jurors are selected (essentially) randomly. There is no expectation of a perfect jury. One random jury may result in one verdict while another results in the opposite. The only expectation is that the jury will be fair.

2. Regularly overturning convictions based on slight disagreements with a judge's decision can encourage tomfoolery. For example, a defense attorney could do minimal investigation prior to voir dire, then wait to see how the verdict turn out. If it results in conviction, they can do a deep dive investigation into the jurors to uncover any non-candid answers or information that should have been disclosed under an open-ended question on a questionnaire. This is essentially verdict shopping.

3. Both sides are given preemptive strikes. If they ask for a juror to be disqualified and the judge disagrees, they can use a preemptive strike to overcome that disagreement. The courts have held that an error by the judge cannot be completely mitigated by the existence of preemptive strikes because that error could change the strategy used by the defense and put them at a disadvantage that they would not have had if the error had not been made. However, even if not stated in writing, I think appellate judges take the existence of preemptive strikes into consideration and narrow the scrutiny of judicial decision on juror disqualification.

4. The judge has the discretion to determine whether or not to disqualify a juror. It is largely a judgment call. There are some things that are clearly disqualifying and some that are clearly not, but there is a large grey area. The purpose of appellate courts is not to get a second opinion when someone doesn't like a judges decision. An appellate court is going to be hesitant to overturn based on something where it is largely the judge's discretion unless there is an obvious egregious injustice.

However, state and federal courts have been all over the map on this issue. The legal precedents have done little to clarify the greyer areas of juror disqualification.
 
An inconsistency between her statements in court and a pre-publication blurb on a website about her book are not enough. Sorry. Such inconsistencies could have many explanations beyond her lying in court.

What explanations, specifically?

The most obvious:
She is not the author of the website promoting the book and would not have used that language to describe her own work.

What evidence do you present for your hypothesis?

It is not a hypothesis. It is one of many possible explanations, which is all I ever offered.

It would be your burden to show that the words on the website are hers, if you were to argue in court that she was lying.

Look, you flew off half cocked and made a lot of assumptions. All I'm doing is pointing them out.

Proving that she lied in court is not a trivial matter and you have not even come close to doing so.
 

Back
Top Bottom