If one reads Turley's OP-Eds carefully, the flaws in his argument become obvious. The holes are huge and fatal. He acknowledges, "I obviously come to these questions from the perspective of a criminal defense attorney." Yes, quite obviously. And he hedges, twice, by ignoring the available record. "What is missing is a transcript or record from the voir dire and what was asked and any objections made in the court." No, it's not, as we've already discussed it here. And, "(assuming that the objection was preserved by the defense)". As the transcript demonstrates, it was not. So, Turley's unsurprising arguments fail. The jurors views were well known and her record discoverable. I expect that Stone's next objection will be "ineffective assistance of counsel". (I also expect that will be the topic of a new thread.) That, too, will fail.
