Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
We're 33 days into the trial of James Holmes for opening fire in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater in 2012 and the jurors are being dismissed left and right. Last week, three jurors were kicked after reading tweets about the case. Another was let go on Monday for failing to disclose potential bias during voir dire. She was joined by a fifth juror, removed today, again for potential bias.
After Judge Carlos Samour pulled together the largest jury pool in history, it looks like a few mistakes may have been made in voir dire -- and after. Here's what lawyers can learn from the Aurora shooting jury mess.
1. Thoroughly Research Jurors
There's little a lawyer can do to control a juror's actions once they're in the jury box. There's no way defense lawyers could have prevented the first three jurors from discussing tweets about the case, for example. But they could have caught the potential biases of the two jurors dismissed this week with sufficient research.
The last juror dismissed was let go following the testimony of Maria Carbonell, who was injured in the shooting. If anyone had investigated where Carbonell, a mother of three, sent her children to school, they would have found out that the dismissed juror worked there. Instead, it was up to Carbonell to reveal the connection, reporting that she knew the juror after her testimony.
2. Address Problems as They Come UpVoir dire isn't your only time to take on potential jury bias. Monday's booted juror was let go when it was revealed that her brother-in-law had been the victim of a random shooting. No one was clued in when she requested to visit him in the hospital -- she said he had just been in an accident -- because no one researched it at the time.
It can also help protect against rogue jurors, as a recent Second Circuit case demonstrates. In the prosecution of a Deutsche Bank broker, one juror completely misrepresented her background and essentially hijacked the jury to ensure the banker's conviction -- all while the defense lawyers suspected that she might have mislead them but failed to pursue their suspicions fully. The banker only narrowly escaped a ruling that his lawyers' failure to investigate waived his right to a fair trial.