ILNews

Jurors may be asked mental health, suicide questions in Shuai case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Potential jurors in the high-profile trial of a Chinese immigrant charged with murder for the death of her newborn daughter won’t have to disclose their religious or political views, but they will be asked whether they or people close to them have been treated for mental health issues, suffered the loss of an infant or attempted suicide.

Those and other supplemental questions may be provided in confidential juror questionnaires that Marion Superior Judge Sheila Carlisle will approve in coming weeks for the trial of Bei Bei Shuai. Carlisle on Friday ruled on several questions Shuai’s defense proposed. Prosecutors say the trial could last three weeks.

Carlisle urged defense and prosecuting attorneys to work together to revise questions that will be allowed with some modification. For instance, a proposed question about whether prospective jurors had traveled to China will be reworded. “I do not want to focus on a particular country,” Carlisle said.

Shuai is charged with murder and attempted feticide in the death of her daughter. In the waning days of 2010, Shuai attempted suicide by consuming rat poison after she was jilted by the baby’s father. After friends persuaded Shuai to seek medical attention, her daughter was delivered by Caesarian section but died a few days later.

A medical examiner’s testimony that rat poison was the cause of death was ruled unreliable and inadmissible, but the state has contracted with a Michigan pathologist to rule on a cause of death, the results of which have not yet been disclosed.

Friday, Carlisle ruled out seven of 15 proposed defense supplemental questions that would have asked potential jurors about their religious and political views. Prosecutors argued none of the proposed questions should be asked. “That’s crossing a line into the improper,” deputy prosecutor Courtney Curtis said of the proposed question, “Do you identify with a certain religious faith?”

Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner and jury selection expert Dennis Stolle joined Shuai’s defense and said that questions regarding depression, China and others were “attitudinal” in nature and aimed to ensure a fair and unbiased jury.

Stolle told Carlisle that he’d represented a defendant in a recent case in Hendricks County that involved a litigant who was Chinese. Jurors were asked in open court of their views of people from China, Stolle said, and “I was astonished by their responses. … It was unsettling.”

Carlisle estimated as many as 150 to 200 potential jurors may be called to fill out questionnaires and be considered for a jury she said would consist of 12 jurors and likely six alternates.   

Carlisle said she intends to inform jurors in the questionnaire of the case they’re being called for, the language of the criminal complaint, and identify attorneys and potential witnesses so that potential jurors with clear conflicts can be removed from the pool. Jury selection will begin Aug. 26 for the trial scheduled to start Sept. 3.

Meantime, Carlisle ordered attorneys to prepare final witness lists by July 3 and file opposition or support for exhibits by July 15.

The Shuai case became international news after charges were filed. Shuai's attorney Linda Pence says charges should never have been brought and they represent a criminalization of conduct for which men and non-pregnant women would not have been prosecuted.

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said in an August interview that the language of criminal statutes under which Shuai is charged is plain, and he had no hesitation about filing charges once facts of the case were known because Shuai’s conduct fell within that language.

Carlisle acknowledged the hundreds of potential exhibits from prosecutors and the defense and made the pronouncement that rather than granting continuances, evidence would be stricken if it didn’t meet deadlines.

The judge restated her admonition that no further delays would be granted in a case that’s already well over two years old. “We do not have the luxury of parties waiting to file motions,” Carlisle said. “We are at the point where evidence is going to be excluded before we add additional time in this case.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT