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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT