Link to a questionnaire proposed by Jose Baez to be given to prospective jurors in Casey's CHECK FRAUD case.
Now, remember, she confessed to having done this. Or, at least, she paid back the money. I would think that paying back the money would constitute acknowledging responsibility, wouldn't you?
Baez want a change of venue, he wants a lot of stuff excluded from the trial, including anything that might be evidence in the murder trial.
Let's not forget that this trial is for CHECK FRAUD, specifically in the amount of $662. This is not the murder trial.
He wants jurors interviewed individually, instead of the usual collective voir dire.
He wants jurors to answer a lot of extremely personal questions, some of which might be unconstitutional.
Now, I have never been called for jury duty, so I don't know what sort of questions are usually asked, but I do know that if I were asked some of these questions, I would be doing a slow burn.
Some of them sound like refugees from a Facebook quiz, such as, "If you could change your profession, what would you change it to?"
He wants them to list their employment for the last ten years, and their spouse's employment. He wants to know names and ages of their children, and their schools or occupations. He wants their educational background, in detail that would put the average resume to shame, and their spouse's. He wants to know if the prospective jurors or their spouses have ever served in the military, what sort of discharge, if they ever participated in a court martial. He wants to know their political preference, and if their spouse holds a different political view.
Prospective jurors are asked to list their favourite TV shows.
The ten-page document ends with the usual questions about whether they know or have heard of any of the principals in the case.
Is this sort of questioning normal? If not, why does Baez think he can expect something like this to be allowed?
I haven't had time to struggle through the huge document dump. I just got stuck on this one.