It did not seem to me that we addressed the question at hand. It is still unclear to me what the conversation of appellate judges has to do with the decision to apply for a change of venue in a jury case
Hey.. On the last question, I think everyone has biases and all juries act on their biases. For example, most people are more favorable to the state's positions and believe police. They don't think people would be at trial if they weren't guilty and that is obviously not the case.
I agree. We were not given enough evidence to conclude that the original jury would be prejudiced. However, I don't know if there was any information bearing on the decision that was not presented to us.
The argument though was the opposite they did not think they would get a fair trial because they would have been tried in the community the policed. While in fact, the community at hand would be more familiar with the policing practices in their neighbor and the abuse of power displayed.
yeah i think that's why this is an interesting question, especially because it points out some of the issues of racial profiling built into the jury system itself, such as venue changes and voir dire, which are basically totally legal, batson challenges notwithstanding