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

alphafemale

(18,497 posts)

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

Reply to herding cats (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 17, 2015, 06:09 AM

Jul 2015

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