The first two potential jurors have been interviewed. One appeared the type the prosecution might prefer; the other seemed more favorable to the defense.
First up was a white accountant in his 30s, the father of two young chidren. He said that he had to travel to Denver, New York and Los Angeles in the coming weeks and that his career would be harmed if he was selected for the jury and could not make the trips.
In his answers to the jury questionnaire, he revealed he was aware of the case and that based on what he had read, he believed Kelly was guilty. But he told Judge Gaughan that he could put that aside. Looking at Kelly, who was holding a tissue to his face, he promised that he could give Kelly a fair trial.
Kelly mouthed "alright" in response.
His answers to the questionnaire also showed that he believed child porn was "about as low as you can get." But he said he would be able to handle discussing the distasteful aspects of the case, including sexual urination, with other jurors.
Defense attorney Ed Genson focussed on whether the man had read recent Sun-Times coverage of the case, but the man said he had not.
The second potential juror was a balding white man in his 50s. He seemed overwhelmed by his involvement in the case, repeatedly saying that his mind had been "racing" and "reeling" since he learned he could have a role to play in such a high profile trial.
He said he would find it hard to find a celebrity like Kelly guilty. Asked whether he could give Kelly a fair trial he immediately replied "yes." But challenged to offer the state the same assurance, he paused for a moment before saying he thought he could. Later, he insisted that he would try to be fair to both sides.
Leave a comment