Replies

I've read Vol.VI which contains the voir dire (jury selection) and opening statements (and some testimony). Key points of jury selection are as follows:

12 jurors and 2 alternates were selected. There were 8 woman and 4 men. 9 jurors had Hispanic names. Both alternates were Hispanic women (by name).

A retired police man from Arkansas was struck for cause because he because he said that in situations like this he would favor the officer because "he had been there."

Several people had heard about this matter. I don't think that any of those people made it on the jury, but I don't know if they were struck for cause or by peremptory challenge.

One potential juror was struck for cause because he said that the sheer number of charges caused him to believe that at least one of them had to be true.

One juror who appears to be a doctor (he referred to his "patients") said that he could not easily accept testimony from a prosecution witness (Dr. Warme?) because he knew doctors who said that he did poor surgical work.

One thing that astonished me was the number of people on the jury with connections to law enforcement. There was hardly a person on the jury without LEO connections. And mostly federal. Especially FBI. There must have been a half dozen people connected with the FBI. And lots with DEA and Border Police connections. Many had been on a jury before, with one serving on a grand jury.

I have been picking juries in Texas for 25 years, and I can't remember encountering anyone related to the FBI. It was so one-sided that I tend to suspect something wrong with the jury wheel. I remember that this was a problem with the Branch Davidian trial in San Antonio.

Just an aside, did you know that Ramos has Tourettes? I could see how that could come in handy in a trial like this (JK).

As is common in federal court, the judge did almost all of voir dire. [This is a BIG problem -- there is no more important aspect of a jury trial than wide open voir dire and peremptory challenges]. But I will say that this Judge did an OK job.

One interesting part of voir dire was when the Judge brought a juror up to the bench for more detailed questioning. When he said that he would side with the agent/officer, the Judge said that there were BPAs "on both sides." Then prosecutor Debra Kanof (for whom I have developed a distinct dislike) asked if he would feel the same if he knew that the guy had been "shot in the back." That man did not make it on the jury.

My next report will be on opening statement.

Thanks, IJ! Good work. I read some of that but your summary is terrific. I'm reading testimony of some of the minor characters. BTW, you might want to look at the immunity arrangement included on the first 15 or so pages of Vol 8. His immunity was not full testimonial immunity that would have made him tell the "whole truth" and, in fact, he ended up taking the 5th on a whole slew of subjects.

As to Ramos and TS, I just read that in Vol 10. The Prosecutor brought it up on direct of Agent Mendoza. Just a brief question as to whether the Agent knew that (in conjunction with questions about whether Ramos seemed nervous). I didn't know where he was going with it, but I figured I would run into it elsewhere.