Renato Stabile
speaker
116 appearances
2 recordings
1 series
first heard Apr 2025
last heard May 2025
Renato Stabile’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
The second batch of questions are going to be questions about following the law. There'll probably be a statement, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right not to testify in a criminal trial. Do you have any issues with that? Would you have a problem finding somebody not guilty if they didn't testify on their own behalf? Do you agree that a defendant doesn't have to prove anything?
That the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense could literally sit there and do nothing? And if the government doesn't prove their case, you have to find him not guilty. Are you able to do that? So there'll be a lot of those types of legal questions. Then there'll be a set of questions about, have you ever been a victim?
Have you ever been accused of anything? Have you ever been a witness? What experience do you have with the legal system, with the criminal justice system? Then there'll be a set of questions about relationships or feelings about the prosecution or defense. Do you have a law enforcement background? Does anybody in your family have a law enforcement background?
Is anybody in your family a criminal defense attorney? Do you know any of these people? And all of the lawyers' names and the prosecutors and the judge, everybody's name will be there. Do you know any of these people? Would you be able to evaluate the testimony of law enforcement witnesses the same as anybody else? Or would you tend to believe law enforcement witnesses more than anybody else?
All of those questions are going to be in there. Then there's going to be a section about knowledge about the case. Now, this is where I expect almost everyone has heard about the case and has heard about him. But that's not disqualifying. The question is, OK, even if you've heard about the case and even if you've heard about him, can you keep an open mind? Can you be fair and impartial?
Have you formed any opinions about the case? Have you posted about the case? I think that'll be asked. in the questionnaire directly. So that'll be really interesting to see how people answer that. And then after all of that, those are sort of the qualifying questions that the lawyers will get to look at and decide, is there anything we see that automatically disqualifies this juror?
And so they'll come up with a list. The prosecution and the defense will meet and the defense will say, this is our list of people we think should go for cause. The prosecution will give their list of people who should go for cause. And wherever they agree, those people are going to get dismissed.
But in addition to that, the prosecution may have a list of people that the defense doesn't agree with, and the defense will have a list of people that the prosecution doesn't agree with. And then they will have to go back to court, and each side will make arguments about why a particular juror should go or stay.
The judge may get rid of some of those people, some of the prosecution strikes, some of the defense strikes, but probably not all of them. And so they'll be marked for follow-up. Then there'll be a process where the jurors who survive the cause challenges made by the parties are brought back to court. And then they will be asked a few different things.
Number one, they will be asked certain follow-up questions based on their answers in the questionnaires. But then there'll be actual voir dire where they're asked just background questions. Very often you do this live because the parties have to hear people speak. We all form opinions about people just based on how they speak, their affect. Do they sound intelligent? Do they sound reasonable?
Do they sound like the kind of person I could go out and get a coffee with? All of those things. And also, you know, the defendant, Diddy, has a right to hear people speak and look them in the eye and his life is on the line. And he has the right to be there and look at the people who are going to sit in judgment of him and make decisions for himself about how he feels about
about these people or somebody giving him a really bad vibe? What is he not like the way somebody kind of stared him down? And so there has to be a process when these people are going to be brought back in and they'll be asked questions like, you know, what do you do for work? What's your education? What neighborhood do you live in? Where did you grow up? What are the people in your household do?
Like, what is your spouse or significant other do? If your children are adults, what do they do? Have you ever served on a jury before? They might ask them, what TV shows do you watch? Where do you get your news? Which will be very important, I think, especially for the defense, because they'll be very in tune to which news outlets have been the most negative and ditty about this case.
Let's just say somebody mentions a news outlet and the defense says, wow, they've really bashed him relentlessly. Then they know they have to watch out because everything that that person has ingested is about the case has been super negative. So where you get your news and what news you watch is going to be incredibly important.
What websites you go to will be incredibly important, where you get your social media. And then they might just ask some things like, do you belong to any clubs or organizations? What are your hobbies? What do you like to do in your spare time?
Questions like that, just so the parties can get kind of a better understanding about these folks so they can intelligently exercise their peremptory strikes. And then the very final part of the process is you exercise your strikes. Defense gets 10, prosecution gets six. You get one for every two alternates. So you're going to see 12 jurors.
And then I don't know how many alternates there are going to be, but let's just say there were only two alternates. Each side would get a strike.
I think so. I mean, I think things, you know, the other thing about federal court that's very different from state court, in state court, the lawyers... get to stand up and talk to the jurors and ask questions directly with very little input or interference from the judge. In federal court, it is totally different. The lawyers don't speak. And the judge does all of the questioning.
And occasionally the judge will allow the lawyers to ask a follow-up question where they'll go to sidebar and they'll ask a follow-up question. And I predict that there will be a lot of sidebars in this case where the jurors will be brought into a back room and questioned one by one. That's for a couple of reasons. One, You'll get more honest answers because the courtroom is going to be packed.
That's also unusual in your typical criminal case. There's nobody there. There's nobody there watching. But in this case, it's going to be packed. They're going to see the press outside when they show up for jury. Everybody's going to be hyper aware that everything they say is being highly scrutinized.
Showing 81–100 of 116 · page 5 of 6
← Previous
Next →