During the afternoon hearing in the trial of Jason Anthony Warren, several potential jurors were excused by the judge after they admitted, in one way or another, that they’d be unable to abide by the fundamental tenet of the American judicial system, that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Judge Timothy Cissna brought potential jurors into the courtroom one at a time and asked them to elaborate on answers they gave on a juror questionnaire. Most had indicated that they were at least vaguely familiar with the basic elements of the case. 

Warren stands accused of double homicide in the 2013 2012 deaths of Dorothy Ulrich and Suzanne Seemann. Almost all potential jurors brought in for questioning today said they’d heard about the case in the media or at their jobs. Most had heard that a woman was killed in Hoopa and three joggers and a dog were run down on Old Arcata Road.

Beyond that, several in the jury pool said they would have trouble being impartial.

“My feelings are they caught the person,” one man said. “I feel like it’s a waste of time going through this process.”

Judge Cissna asked the man if he believes Warren is guilty, before any evidence has been presented. 

“Yes,” the man said. He went on to mumble a bit, and he admitted he hadn’t heard any evidence. Judge Cissna asked him if he could put his preconceived ideas out of his mind. 

“It would be difficult,” the man said. He was excused from the jury selection process.

Another man, who said he’s worked with a relative of Suzanne Seemann, one of the victims in the case, expressed sympathy for the families of those killed. When the judge asked if he’d be able to base his decisions on the facts presented in the case, the man said he’d need to see evidence that the person who was arrested was not guilty.

Judge Cissna responded promptly, “K, that’s the opposite of our laws.” The defense, Cissna said, doesn’t have to prove anything. It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The man said there were effects on his thinking over which he has no control, but after some more questioning he said he understood the burden of proof concept. The man was kept in the jury pool.

A woman who said she works security at the Bayshore Mall had written in her questionnaire that she wasn’t sure she’d be able to presume innocence. Questioned by Cissna she said she said that after seeing so much of the criminal element at her job, “It’s hard to believe someone’s innocent if they’ve been arrested.” She, too, was ultimately kept in the jury pool after defense attorney Glenn Brown peppered her on the “reasonable doubt” concept.

Several jurors were questioned and accepted, but justice system skeptics kept popping up.

“Authorities don’t make many mistakes in apprehending criminals,” said a man in his sixties. 

The judge asked if he thinks any person arrested is likely guilty.

“For serious crimes, yes,” the man said. Asked if he could be fair and impartial he responded, “I don’t think so. Because police get it right 98 percent of the time.”

He, too, was excused.

PREVIOUSLY