Gillis jury excuses many

• By JOE GYAN JR.
• Advocate staff writer
• Published: Jun 23, 2008 - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.

• Print
• Email
• Save
• Share

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Reddit
• 

The prosecutor in the capital murder trial of suspected serial killer Sean Vincent Gillis has described the jury selection process as “a quick interview for a very important job.’’

Quick? Debatable. Very important? No question about it.

No jurors have been seated after two weeks of jury selection, but attorneys for both sides insist the process is moving forward.

State District Judge Bonnie Jackson said at the start of the process that jury selection would take about three weeks to complete.
“Maybe a little longer, maybe a little shorter,’’ she said.

A little longer appears to be the safer bet.

Of the first 42 prospective jurors to be painstakingly questioned by Jackson, prosecutor Prem Burns and defense lawyers Kerry Cuccia and Steven Lemoine, only seven made it to the pool from which the jury of 12 and two alternates ultimately will be drawn.

Jackson said about 800 jury summonses were sent out, but about 500 people failed to respond. At one point during the first day of jury selection, the judge said: “We may have to go out and scrounge up some more jurors.’’

Views on the death penalty, which the state is seeking in Gillis’ case, have led to the dismissal of many potential jurors.

One such juror who works at a funeral home said she has been a lifelong advocate of capital punishment.

“I think life in prison is a waste of taxpayer money,’’ she said. Both sides agreed to her disqualification. Another prospective juror who practices civil law was let go for the same reason.

Others have been dismissed because they knew too much about the Gillis case and had already formed an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. Still others have said their religious beliefs prevent them from sitting in judgment of another, especially when that judgment could result in a death sentence.

Some have been excused because they said they could not genuinely consider any mitigating factors that Gillis’ defense team might present, such as alleged psychological problems, lack of a prior criminal record, and possible intoxication at the time of the alleged crime.

Jackson is not excusing every potential juror merely because the prosecutor or defense attorneys object.