would find issue with his capacity to weigh reasonable doubt in the complex circumstances of Mandi's case, and serve as a 12th member of a jury. Another bizarre part of jury selection, was Prosecutor Stone seemed to be trying to stack the jury with black people. Or at least what he thought were black people. To me they sort of looked brown. Who knows what goes through his crazy deluded head. The defense sits about twice as far from the jury as the prosecution. And I was sitting even further than the defense. So it is possible the prosecution was able to see something about the race of the jurors that nobody else could see. Stone objected to at least two of Mandi's lawyers’ peremptory strikes, demanding the defense provide a non-racial reason for not wanting a particular juror. I can only guess there is some case law that says if a prosecutor eliminates all black people from the trial of a black defendant, it is no longer a jury of his peers. And even though the lawyers in Mandi's jury selection were not provided with a self-identification of the race of jurors, prosecutor Stone took it upon himself to classify the jurors according to his own beliefs on race. Whether there is some corresponding case law that prevents a defense from removing all jurors not the race of the defendant, I can't guess why there would be. Based on Stone's actions, there must be. But there is not as strong an argument that preventing a jury of the same race as the defendant is necessary to create a jury of "peers" of the defendant. It is the defendant, not God or the victim, who has a right to a jury of his peers. And you would think most case law in this area is to protect minorities. It is less often practical for the defense to remove all non- minorities from a jury to match the defendant. To my memory, Mandi's lawyer Bark got rid of at least 15 jurors, and only two or three might fit Stone's system of racial classification as some race. This seems close to a random variation around the original racial makeup of the jury pool. If 15% of all potential jurors in the room were black, and something near 15% of Bark’s strike were black or who even knows, there is no indication of a racial pattern. But all Stone's objections to Bark’s strikes, were openly designed to create a jury of a different race from the defendant. And to my memory, a disproportionate number of Stone's own strikes were probably from what Stone would consider the same race as the defendant. So the prosecutor, not the defense, openly and statistically acted toward a purpose of removing jurors of the same race as, and peers to, the defendant. My guess, or at least my hope, is these activities go against the word, or at least the spirit, of case law, which is designed to prevent exactly this situation, a prosecutor removing jurors of the same race as the defendant. To me, it seems it should create a mistrial, or at least a new jury selection, as this sort of activity will only put the case back in court if it is not fixed while you have the chance. It's not nice to the taxpayer. I cannot understand how this power to object to removing jurors, and demand a non-racial reason, would ever be appropriate when used by a prosecutor. If the prosecutor has some non-race-based reason for objecting to a juror's removal, then presumably the defense would want to remove the juror for the same reason the prosecutor objects. If the prosecutor doesn't have a non-race-based reason for objecting, then the prosecutor is the one trying to pack the jury based on race, with jurors of a different race from the defendant. White strip clubs and black strip clubs are very different. White guys and black guys are very different. White guys are jealous and black guys are swingers. The victim Mulrenin was white, as was Scott Love. Very much so. As were almost all the witnesses white. A defense lawyer can't pick a juror more likely to understand what goes on in a white strip club, a jury of peers? It is another example of the bizarre perversion of the whole process by case law, towards a random outcome that has nothing to do with justice. It really seemed to me as if some of the black jurors were bored and disinterested, and then became more interested in the DNA evidence because the DNA expert was black. Or at least she was something prosecutor Stone would probably call black. That is one of the things that rubs me wrong about it from the start, is who gets to decide which jurors will be labeled a different race and need a non-racial reason to be dismissed? Judge Recksiedler is the judge IV-7l