CENTENNIAL | A juror who said she probably wouldn’t sentence anyone to death short of Adolph Hitler is moving on to the next phase of jury selection despite objections from the prosecution in the Aurora theater shooting trial.
The juror, a woman in her 20s, called the death penalty immoral and said life in prison without parole was a better punishment.
“Death is an easy escape,” she said.
She initially said she, “wouldn’t choose to sentence someone to death” but when pressed by Judge Carlos Samour Jr. and lawyers for accused shooter James Holmes, she softened her stance some.
“I would consider it, but given my leanings I would be unlikely to go with the death penalty,” she said.
District Attorney George Brauchler said the woman’s initial unwillingness to even consider the death penalty means she should be released from jury service.
And, Brauchler said, the woman only relented after the judge essentially told her the law required jurors to consider it. Brauchler likened that to him eating a Styrofoam cup. He said he wouldn’t do it, but if he was told he had to he might consider it.
But Tamara Brady, one of the lawyers representing Holmes, said the juror only needs to consider the death penalty. After hearing months of testimony about 12 murders and dozens more wounded, Brady said “there will be jurors who would eat a cup before they would pick life in prison.”
The juror was the only one of four jurors questioned Friday who are moving on to the group questioning phase. Two were released because they said serving on a lengthy trial would be a financial hardship.
Another prospective juror, an elderly man who worked as an engineer, was released because he cares for his 81-year-old sister.
Samour said the man — who gave detailed and insightful to the judge’s questions and admitted that putting his biases aside would be tough — would have been an ideal juror.
Holmes sat quietly during the hearing, chuckling a few times when the elderly man and Samour joked with eachother.
Three of the four prospective jurors questioned this morning were released from duty due to undue hardship — two for financial hardships, and the elderly man who cares for his sister.
After the initial round of questioning for the first juror, a middle aged woman, she told the judge that she had a financial hardship regarding her employer’s unwillingness to pay her throughout the trial. Both the defense and prosecution agreed to release her.
Judge Carlos Samour Jr. was clearly miffed that the woman hadn’t mentioned any possible financial issues earlier.
When the second juror took the stand, a middle-aged man in an Avalanche jersey, Samour immediately asked him whether serving would be a hardship in an apparent attempt to speed the process.
The man said he owned a carpentry business and serving would definitely cause him hardship.
“Of course. There is no way I could sit here for months, I’d be living under a bridge,” the man said.
The man was released after only about 90 seconds of questioning.
Sentinel reporter Sawyer D’Argonne contributed to this report.