tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8298837746880587541.post4794112575840969886..comments2024-01-06T05:01:09.131-06:00Comments on The Defense Rests: My house, my rulesPaul B. Kennedyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15827522954049831696noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8298837746880587541.post-17280875248786071262013-03-29T15:06:55.241-05:002013-03-29T15:06:55.241-05:00Paul you could not be more wrong on this one.
Now...Paul you could not be more wrong on this one.<br /><br />Nowhere in Article 35.16 does it say that a juror has to be struck for cause for having a bias. The question is whether they have a bias against the Defendant, and this is not automatically shown just when a juror has a bias in favor some particular class of individual that may testify.<br /><br />Did you read the Ladd case I cited? Or these? <br /><br />Leal v. State, S.W.3d, 2001 WL 892834<br />Harris v. State, 784 S.W.2d 5<br /><br /><i>A venireman is challengeable for cause under Article 35.16(a)(9) if he cannot impartially judge the credibility of witnesses. However, this means only that jurors must be open-minded and persuadable, with no extreme or absolute positions regarding the credibility of any witness. Veniremen are not challengeable for cause simply because they would give certain classes of witnesses a slight edge in terms of credibility, because “[c]omplete impartiality cannot be realized as long as human beings are called upon to be jurors.” <b>Thus, McKay was not challengeable for cause because he would tend to believe policemen and doctors slightly more than others.</b> </i>Adam Poolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01573028166062477867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8298837746880587541.post-80994524802248440602013-03-29T14:13:00.323-05:002013-03-29T14:13:00.323-05:00If a juror states he will give more credibility to...If a juror states he will give more credibility to the testimony of a police officer solely because he is a police officer, that juror has indicated his bias and may be struck for cause.Paul B. Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15827522954049831696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8298837746880587541.post-8564403941673071032013-03-29T14:01:36.264-05:002013-03-29T14:01:36.264-05:00I obviously don't know exactly how each person...I obviously don't know exactly how each person answered your question and many very well may have talked themself into a strike, but the law is clear that you cannot strike a venireman just for saying that they would "give a police officer more credibility" than a non-officer witness.<br /><br />Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547Adam Poolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01573028166062477867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8298837746880587541.post-63297671103521207072013-03-29T12:46:45.900-05:002013-03-29T12:46:45.900-05:00I lost a noise ordinance ticket where the officer ...I lost a noise ordinance ticket where the officer who made national news stealing lunches from his fellow officers lied his ass off and was allowed to testify to previous calls to my clients home where no citation or warning was issued. I objected to it as improper propensity evidence and was overruled. It's all about the revenue. This officer was fired for. Petty theft, but rehired because he generates a lot of revenue. Kangaroo messed all over that place. Brad Walters Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com