Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)

9. And so they should. The guy should never have been on that jury.

Reply to bluestateguy (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 16, 2015, 11:12 PM

Jul 2015

The shooter will get new counsel and they will use this to show the incompetence of the defense. Also, the judge erred when he allowed the guy to stay on the jury after he disclosed he knew a witness.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Movie theater shooting jury foreman survived 1999 shooting at Columbine High School [View all] El Supremo Jul 2015 OP

Apparently he divulged that during voir dire so it's amazing the defense didn't dismiss him tularetom Jul 2015 #1

And now I bet you the defense uses that as their basis for an appeal bluestateguy Jul 2015 #2

No doubt iandhr Jul 2015 #3

astute observation HFRN Jul 2015 #6

And so they should. The guy should never have been on that jury. BillZBubb Jul 2015 #9

Well, they could have DQed him during jury selection bluestateguy Jul 2015 #13

They most likely were padding their future billing. LompocDem Jul 2015 #18

Well dont they have limit on how many they can ask to be dismissed? cstanleytech Jul 2015 #21

you can't dismiss people who have been involved in shootings CreekDog Jul 2015 #26

A basis for appeal, sure. joshcryer Jul 2015 #25

Especially since they dismissed two alternates for being mugged Recursion Jul 2015 #8

maybe because he said he was childhood friends with the shooters JI7 Jul 2015 #35

Amazing that he wasn't excused ... Myrina Jul 2015 #33

All I'm going to say is the defense truly sucked when it came to jury selection herding cats Jul 2015 #4

It's not as is there was ever any doubt as to Holmes guilt. nt alphafemale Jul 2015 #30

... shenmue Jul 2015 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #7

If the juror lied during voir dire (he didn't) Recursion Jul 2015 #10

Wow, I'm amazed he was selected in the first place. arcane1 Jul 2015 #11

Maybe not so amazing. missingthebigdog Jul 2015 #12

It could raise doubts as to the competence of the defense. Fuddnik Jul 2015 #14

I would think that timdog44 Jul 2015 #15

The judge fucked that up SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2015 #16

Yep. Should not have been up to either the defense or the prosecution. CBGLuthier Jul 2015 #29

I was shocked to see this. montana_hazeleyes Jul 2015 #17

wow... ibegurpard Jul 2015 #19

I have to wonder if this wasn't a calculated decision on the part of the defense Kennah Jul 2015 #20

Now that is some Karma KeepItReal Jul 2015 #22

Mindboggling Aerows Jul 2015 #23

Wow, I got excused from a jury due to gun violence... joshcryer Jul 2015 #24

looks like he has a fair trial and will never get out of prison anyway. Sunlei Jul 2015 #27

Uh oh RandySF Jul 2015 #28

I don't think he changed the outcome of the verdict but that sure looks bad REP Jul 2015 #31

Why? Because honestry & integrity are no longer desirable in a juror? Nihil Jul 2015 #32

How do you know the defense did not object? former9thward Jul 2015 #34

they should have accepted the guilty plea in exchange for life JI7 Jul 2015 #36

Bingo! El Supremo Jul 2015 #37