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.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.