After looking a the Rekieta law broadcast and reading AF Branca's take, there is a growing suspicion the holdup on this jury is mainly or entirely due to Juror 54, the female foreperson who seems to be the holdout against acquittal.
While this is just a suspicion, the various lawyers on R.L. have echo'd the same thought. One in particular is "Barnes" who has been very critical of the the defenses lead attorney, starting with the fact that he chose not to take jury vetting seriously. "Barnes" pointed out that he requires written answers to questions from the potential juror, not only for content but to help determine the personality of the juror - and from something she wrote he picked up on the fact that she capitalizes her K's in mid words...a habit associated with controlling and bossy behavior.
Anyway, in Kenosha there are various kinds of ethnic groups...the oldest and most affluent community being stock from Upper N.Y. and Scandinavian. In addition there is a larger later generation of working class of English, Irish, and a few Hispanic. These two groups are in tension, especially as the "oldest culture" while small in numbers still dominates social attitudes and is in tension with the larger working class.
The jury foreperson is likely a Karen type, of leftist political persuasion, being bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive. As we know, this kind of person would be very unlikely to ever vote for acquittal—her social group would necessarily know she had done so, given the unanimous nature of an acquittal.
And this type of person is likely to push for the leadership position of foreperson on a jury as it suits their controlling and entitled personality. And such this kind of person is usually outspoken and forward, insisting on dominating other people would defer to apparently higher authority.
(Indeed there has been one apparently female juror who on several occasions can be overheard being unusually conversational and relaxed with Judge Schroeder, her status equal.
Then there is the jury note from yesterday written by juror #54, the jury foreperson:
The note suggests that the person who wrote it is accustomed to issuing orders to underlings—personal assistants, staff, or household help—and here the note is being addressed in this tone to the trial judge as if the judge were a staffer being directed by the jury foreperson.
And then this evening we had the very unusual request to be permitted to take the jury instructions home, made by a single juror—a female juror.
I suspect that all of this conduct is that of juror #54, the female foreperson of this jury—who I suspect is precisely the kind of “mask Karen,” left-leaning, bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive juror that would be most likely to hold out against acquittal.
AF Branca noted during jury selection: “#54:
Knows some of the witnesses named, but could set that aside.” Branca has also heard from sources in a position to know that when polling was done around jury selection,
prospective jurors who knew any participants in the August 2020 riots–which would likely include some of the witnesses–tended to trend 75% against acquittal.
This is why Richards should have made the effort to challenge jurors that fit a profile. He didn't, now a jury seems stuck between a foreperson who refuses to acquit because of her politics, her personality, and her acquaintances with the protest participants.
www.chicagotribune.com
