Brady mentioned in Gotti Jr. trial

[mikey]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/392492p-332857c.html

A snapshot

The dozen anonymous jurors who will decide John A. (Junior) Gotti's fate:

Juror 1: Black male. A juror four times, he has read books on the Mafia and Sicily; has a brother doing time at Sing Sing and was himself a victim of a mugging in 1991.

Juror 2: White woman; witnessed a shooting at her manicurist last September; she dove to the ground and was unhurt.

Juror 3: Black male; most admires Queen Elizabeth, television news host John McLaughlin and Walter Cronkite; dislikes Don King, former N.J. Gov. James McGreevey and Vice President Cheney. Occasionally listens to the "Curtis and Kuby" radio show believes the Mafia exists.

Juror 4: White male; victim of a mugging; admires football star Tom Brady; knew Gotti is the son of former mob boss John (Dapper Don) Gotti and was possibly involved in criminal activity.

...

 

[desi-patsfan]

dont understand why they'd bother saying who the juror is a fan of.

 

[drew4008]

dont understand why they'd bother saying who the juror is a fan of.

They try and find out what kind of person the juror is, and then can usually determine how he will be swayed. It's quite the concept, jury selection that is.

 

[glecco]

Hmmm.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/392492p-332857c.html

...
Juror 4: White male; victim of a mugging; admires football star Tom Brady; knew Gotti is the son of former mob boss John (Dapper Don) Gotti and was possibly involved in criminal activity.

...

The offseason is sooooo long!



--------------------------------
Parity? What parity? We dont need no stinkin'
parity! Go Pats.

glecco

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

They try and find out what kind of person the juror is, and then can usually determine how he will be swayed. It's quite the concept, jury selection that is.

That explains why Gotti was in court wearing a Pats Jersey with #12 on the back.........

 

[Fanfrom1960]

They try and find out what kind of person the juror is, and then can usually determine how he will be swayed. It's quite the concept, jury selection that is.

Way off (Patriots) topic: I was once kicked off a jury because I coached a kid in little league baseball whose father (doctor) treated a guy who was stabbed in a bar 12 years later. I don't think I ever spoke to the father because the mother always took the kid to and from games and sat in the stands. I was amazed how far they go in screening potential jurors.

 

[sdaniels7114]

So how does being a Brady fan affect the way one votes?

I could see if it was a matter of ranking, like putting Manning or Rothlisburger ahead of Brady. 'Cause if you felt that Brady was not the best of those three, you probably couldn't understand complex legal issues. You know, real tricky stuff like if the defendant was found in a room with a body and he was holding a smoking gun, he's probably guilty.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Way off (Patriots) topic: I was once kicked off a jury because I coached a kid in little league baseball whose father (doctor) treated a guy who was stabbed in a bar 12 years later. I don't think I ever spoke to the father because the mother always took the kid to and from games and sat in the stands. I was amazed how far they go in screening potential jurors.

In voir dire (vwah deer), jury selection is very subjective. You can be excluded for all sorts of reasons or perceived biases from education, profession to the way you dress or present yourself or other factors over which you have no control ( but not race but that would take a whole thread to explain). Depending on the situation and the jurisdiction and the type of trial, be it civil or criminal either side may have a limited number of challenges used to exclude jurors so they have to be selective in who they bounce.
Otherwise they may be out of challenges and find themselves seating a juror they'd rather not have on the jury.
With Google and other online detective services, they can get lots of background on people nearly instantly..........
I was amazed that one of the jurors had served four times. I was called once in 1995 and had to sit thru eight hours before they sent us home. The worst part was that the guy sitting behind me spent all eight hours explaining to the guy next to him why O.J. was innocent..........