Thursday, September 06, 2007

Kott Trial Day 2 - Jury Selection, Down to 60 or so







U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Thursday, September 6, 2007




9:00 AM 3:07-CR-00056-JWS
Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. PETER KOTT
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 2

I figured at the pace they did individual jury questioning yesterday, about what they knew about the case (in court without others from the jury pool in the room), that it was going to take at least seven more hours. It was all pretty repetitive and I had another meeting to go to at noon today, so I didn't think I'd miss much.

I got there at 3:30 pm. The observers' seats were packed with jurors. I found a seat in the back next to Lisa Demer, ADN reporter, who was taking notes on her laptop. (Along with cell phones, the recent order also permitted credentialed journalists to bring laptops into the courtroom. The mainstream journalists suggested I print up a business card that identifies me as a blogger. I'll have to decide whether it's worth the hassle. But if the building is wireless I could blog live. I don't even know how to do that on blogger. We'll see.)

I did a quick headcount and figured there were about 60 jurors still there. Later Lisa said the attorneys had said 65 were left. If they are supposed to be representative of Alaskans, it was clearly way overrepresented by women and overweight folks. It looked pretty white as well, but ethnicity is more difficult to determine visually. There were a few African-Americans; others who might have been Asian or Alaska Native or Hispanic.

The judge was asking questions when I got there.

  • Is there anyone who has experience with the judicial system? A few people had been involved in court cases or had relatives who had.
  • Have you or anyone close to you worked as a lawyer?
    • My husband is a lawyer. Q: Can you be impartial? Yes.
      Q: Do any of the attorneys have a question? No.
  • Have you or anyone close to you been a legislator in Alaska or another state? Nobody.
  • Have you or anyone close to you run for political office?
    • An older gentleman had run for sheriff in Eugene, Oregon, in the 60s, but he'd been beaten by a Democrat
    • Mom was on the School Board in Rural Alaska. Q: Did you help in her campaign? Well it was in a village. She said, they know me and will vote for me. There was no campaign.
    • My brother ran for something local, not sure what, lost to Mystrom before he was anybody
    • I guess this is a good time to disclose this now. My husband and I are good friends with Ben Stevens. The men fished together in the 70s. Q: Stevens isn't a defendant and won't be a witness, but his name will be mentioned. If the jury were to have a verdict (either guilty or not guilty) that could reflect badly on Stevens, would that affect your relationship with the Stevens family? I don't think so. I could handle it, I would hope he could. Q: Do you have any reservations? More because I have a teenage daughter. Q: Attorneys, any questions? No. She went back to her seat.
  • Have you or anyone close to you worked for the legislator? Nobody.
  • Have you or anyone close to you worked on Kott's campaign? Nobody. (Remember these are people who have already said they haven't been biased by news reports. Many have said they don't know much or anything about the issues, though a fair number knew Ben Stevens' name and that he's been implicated. Getting his jury, if it comes to that, will be even more difficult. But this group was not likely to have people active in politics.)
  • Have you or anyone close to you worked in a campaign against Kott? Nobody.
  • Have you or anyone close to you been an officer in a political party?
    • A younger man got up and started talking about police officers. The judge clarified it as political officers.
    • The man who ran for sheriff in Oregon had been an officer in a political party there. Q: What about the Republican party in Alaska? Or maybe you switched parties so you could win? No politics in Alaska.
  • Do you hold strong opinions about politicians in general?
    • The young man who had family members in the police department came to the mike again. Q: Positive or negative opinions? In between Q: Can you explain? A lot of family members work for government and I want to work for government. I'd be more likely to vote with the government. Q: Because it would affect your father? Maybe. Police and fire fighters in the family. Q: Would this affect your decisions? It would always be in the back of my mind. OK, EXCUSED for jury duty.
  • Have you or anyone close to you served as a law enforcement officer?
    • There were several people who had or still were in corrections or had relatives in corrections. One had a brother-in-law in corrections in New York state. He talked to him twice a week. Brother-in-law worked with white collar criminals. He himself had been a military police officer and said he wasn't sure he could be impartial. EXCUSED.
It was now 4:37pm and the jury pool was dismissed. It appeared the judge still had more questions for the whole group. There were still about 60 jurors. This still has to be whittled down to 12 plus alternates. After the jurors were gone the judge asked if there was other business to be settled among the attorneys.

Kott's attorneys asked about how many preemptions they still had now that Weyhrauch was not part of the trial. Judge Sedwick said he'd intended to give each defendant 6, but since there was now only one, he'd give Kott 11. Lisa said the government had 6. So, assuming that they don't knock off the same jurors, that still leaves over 40 in the pool.

Then they discussed what the government was going to have in the audio tapes concerning Kott's medication. This had been excluded and yesterday the ADN had published the story that Allen had given Kott two pills at one point and the defense had gotten this excluded. The government said that they had edited out the main discussion of this, but it was referenced in another clip and they didn't think they could edit it out, but that it really was just a passing reference that shouldn't be an issue. There was also something about hats that the government was planning to have. Not clear what that was about.

And then I left.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.