Potential juror who googles and reads about human trafficking suspect on my blog is excused from jury duty

For a few days, I sat in to watch individual jurors being questioned in the David Anderson human trafficking case, which is being tried for the third time. Potential jurors went through answering hardship, now those that indicated issues with the nature of the charges in the case are being questioned individually and next week, pre-trial motions will be heard. According to DDA Luke Brownfield who is prosecuting the case and Ben McLaughlin, who is representing Anderson, jury selection is expected to start the week of September 29.

Judge Dale Reinholtsen is the trial judge for the third trial.

Yesterday, I watched Mr. McLaughlin do an excellent job of questioning potential jurors. One woman who expressed discomfort with the sexual nature and the fact that Anderson is charged with forciple copulation of a minor victim. Mr.Mclaughlin was very sensitive in the way he questioned this juror and others about subjects that are not easy to talk about in front of strangers. In his questioning, he was also able to draw out racial feelings that most people are reluctant to admit. Anderson is African-American and the victims testifying in this case are all white women.

Another juror who had a few reasons to be excused for cause, admitted that she googled the case and read several posts on my blog and knew Anderson was being tried for the third time. She was honest that this might influence her feelings.

Having watched voir dire in this case and the Tree case, in the latter I was there every day for the process, I have to compliment all the attorneys involved. Both were high profile cases with several emotionally charged issues, and the process has not been rushed.

voir dire:

 the questioning of prospective jurors by a judge and attorneys in court. Voir dire is used to determine if any juror is biased and/or cannot deal with the issues fairly, or if there is cause not to allow a juror to serve (knowledge of the facts; acquaintanceship with parties, witnesses or attorneys; occupation which might lead to bias; prejudice against the death penalty; or previous experiences such as having been sued in a similar case).

Some jurors may be dismissed for cause by the judge, and the attorneys may excuse others in "peremptory" challenges without stating any reason. 2) questions asked to determine the competence of an alleged expert witness. 3) any hearing outside the presence of the jury held during trial.