Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article were very clear on the appellate court's deliberation regarding juror 13's use of the word "Holy Spirit". Judges Rosenbaum and Conway wrote the majority opinion when stating: “Here, the district court (Corrigan) dismissed Juror 13, plainly and simply, because on this particular record, it concluded as a matter of fact that Juror 13 was not capable of rendering a verdict based on the evidence,” "Our holding today is a very narrow one, based on the particular facts of this record. That record reflects that the district court was very careful to ensure it was not dismissing Juror 13 because of Juror 13’s faith or because Juror 13 had prayed for and thought he had received guidance in evaluating the evidence and in actually making a decision based on that evidence.''

@kensmile4u So then, just why WAS the juror dismissed? We are not told.

@WilliamFleming Did you read the entire article from the link I attached? The answers to your questions are in that article.

@kensmile4u I have read it twice now. The court determined that the juror would not be able to render a verdict based on evidence. Why did the court think that? No reason is given. We must suspect that it was because of the “Holy Spirit” remark, even though that is denied.

There’s this:

“But Judge William Pryor wrote a scathing dissent, saying the dismissed juror had given assurances he would base his decision on the evidence.

“Pryor also said the majority opinion could be used by lawyers in the future to try to keep evangelical Christians and African-Americans off juries. He wrote that evangelical Christians and African-Americans “believe they communicate with God at disproportionately high rates.”

@WilliamFleming Not sure why you're ignoring paragraphs 4 and 5. Two out of three judges decided the opinion quoted in those two paragraphs. It's pretty cut and dry. You decided to highlight the dissenting opinion which holds no weight in the appellate court.

@kensmile4u Yes.and no reasons are given for the decision of the appellant judges. My original statement stands:

“We don’t know all the details of this situation.”

@WilliamFleming I don't know why you find it difficult to infer from the information given that Judge Corrigan dismissed this juror after investigating (and interrogating) based on a complaint which was brought to his attention by a fellow juror. The second inference which I find to be easily understood is the appellate court analyzed the court transcripts and Judge Corrigan's notes and perhaps took his testimony. At this point, I don't want to debate about a lack of abductive reasoning.
Best Regards...

I agree! We are out numbered roughly 2 to 1 in US society. But the tide is rising in our favor...