Movie theater shooting jury foreman survived 1999 shooting at Columbine High School

[El Supremo]

Source: 7News Denver

ARAPAHOE COUNTY, Colo. - Jurors in the Aurora movie theater shooting trial selected a survivor of the Columbine High School shooting to be their foreman. He is the one who signed the guilty verdicts.

The juror, whose identity remains a secret of the court, revealed during the selection process that he graduated from Columbine High School in 1999, the year the shooting occurred. He was childhood friends with the Columbine shooters and was close to their victims.

Juror 737 said he spent several years trying to overcome his experience in the high school and originally recoiled at the idea of being on the jury in this trial. After some reflection, however, he said he believed his experiences might make him more capable as a juror.

In May, this juror reported to the court that he realized he was recently acquainted with a witness called by the prosecution. That could have led to his dismissal from the case, but he told the judge he was confident he could remain impartial.

Read more: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/movie-theater-shooting/movie-theater-shooting-jury-foreman-survived-1999-shooting-at-columbine-high-school

---

Strange

[tularetom]

1. Apparently he divulged that during voir dire so it's amazing the defense didn't dismiss him

[bluestateguy]

2. And now I bet you the defense uses that as their basis for an appeal

Just watch

[iandhr]

3. No doubt

[HFRN]

6. astute observation

there can be no other explanation

but this guys dying in prison, be it in 10-20 years from lethal injection, or 60 years from now, of old age

[BillZBubb]

9. And so they should. The guy should never have been on that jury.

The shooter will get new counsel and they will use this to show the incompetence of the defense. Also, the judge erred when he allowed the guy to stay on the jury after he disclosed he knew a witness.

[bluestateguy]

13. Well, they could have DQed him during jury selection

and it was known to the defense that he had this in his past. But they chose to let him serve.

[LompocDem]

18. They most likely were padding their future billing.

This is how the 1% works the justice system. This defendant isn't among the 1% but his lawyers most certainly are...speculation on my part.
Please, I'm not slamming lawyers. They are an invaluable part of our justice system but some are only in it for the money and only want the monetary rewards of their efforts no mater what is right.

[cstanleytech]

21. Well dont they have limit on how many they can ask to be dismissed?

And besides you would think the prosecutor would also move for dismissal as well because it puts the verdict in jeopardy.

[CreekDog]

26. you can't dismiss people who have been involved in shootings

thanks to the gun lobby it's becoming too common.

[joshcryer]

25. A basis for appeal, sure.

But it won't go anywhere. The judge would've thrown him out if he didn't think the guy could work toward impartiality.

[Recursion]

8. Especially since they dismissed two alternates for being mugged

Maybe they think 17 years is a long enough time?

[JI7]

35. maybe because he said he was childhood friends with the shooters

also.

[Myrina]

33. Amazing that he wasn't excused ...

[herding cats]

4. All I'm going to say is the defense truly sucked when it came to jury selection

There was also another juror who had a family member who survived Columbine. I'm not making this up, you can find it someplace on the internet I'm sure.

[alphafemale]

30. It's not as is there was ever any doubt as to Holmes guilt. nt

[shenmue]

5. ...

[Recursion]

10. If the juror lied during voir dire (he didn't)

Or if it can be shown that his attorney acted negligently, conceivably (though SCOTUS has been tightening that up insanely lately). However, his two lawyers (Tamara Brady and Daniel King) have been working capital cases for 20 years now.

[arcane1]

11. Wow, I'm amazed he was selected in the first place.

Especially after saying he couldn't do it.

[missingthebigdog]

12. Maybe not so amazing.

He was childhood friends with the shooters at Columbine.
A defense attorney could conclude that such a person might be sympathetic to the shooter.

[Fuddnik]

14. It could raise doubts as to the competence of the defense.

What kind of attorney would allow someone with his background on the jury?

[timdog44]

15. I would think that

both sides would have been compassionate enough to dismiss these people. The PTSD they must be suffering and then to bring it all back with a trial and confronting the shooters, the shooters, friends, the victims of the crimes and how far must I go. They should not be on the trail for humanitarian reasons. The judge should have rejected them in the original jury pool selection.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

16. The judge fucked that up

he should have pulled that one

[CBGLuthier]

29. Yep. Should not have been up to either the defense or the prosecution.

Bad judge.

[montana_hazeleyes]

17. I was shocked to see this.

I really don't think he should have been on that jury.

[ibegurpard]

19. wow...

Here comes the appeal.

[Kennah]

20. I have to wonder if this wasn't a calculated decision on the part of the defense

Guilt couldn't have ever really been in question. Insanity was always possible.

Could the defense have reasoned that this juror might hold some sway in pushing for a life sentence rather than a death sentence? Surviving the shooting, knowing the shooters, and losing a friend at Columbine might be the sign of a healed person with forgiveness in their heart. I cannot help but think that it would come out during deliberations that he'd survived the shooting at Columbine.

[KeepItReal]

22. Now that is some Karma

Doesn't change the verdict by any means

[Aerows]

23. Mindboggling

Absolutely mindboggling.

[joshcryer]

24. Wow, I got excused from a jury due to gun violence...

...but I admittedly said that perhaps I would not have clear judgement. It's not like in TV shows, you basically recuse yourself, but I think this is an extraordinary example.

[Sunlei]

27. looks like he has a fair trial and will never get out of prison anyway.

[RandySF]

28. Uh oh

I can see this getting thrown out now.

[REP]

31. I don't think he changed the outcome of the verdict but that sure looks bad

[Nihil]

32. Why? Because honestry & integrity are no longer desirable in a juror?

Considering that neither the judge nor the defence objected to the fact
when it was clearly stated during jury selection, how come it suddenly
"sure looks bad" afterwards?

Hell, if it had been that bad a thing then the prosecution would have objected
on the grounds that they wouldn't want to allow any wiggle room for the future.

[former9thward]

34. How do you know the defense did not object?

They may have been out of challenges.

From the article:

He originally recoiled at the idea of being on the jury in this trial, telling the court, "I can't do it." After some reflection, however, he said he believed his experiences might make him more capable as a juror. He said he believed the gunmen at Columbine also had mental issues.

This person should not have been on the jury.

[JI7]

36. they should have accepted the guilty plea in exchange for life

[El Supremo]

37. Bingo!

If he gets the death penalty this will go on and on and on. Colorado has executed only one person in the last 38 years. Nathan Dunlap has been on death row for over 19 years after many appeals. Governor Hickenlooper will issue a stay to anyone due for execution.