From the article: "she violated a key tenant of the justice system". I wonder who that might be. Someone in prison, no doubt.

It always fascinates me how the criminal defense bar likes to find any excuse possible to delay the inevitable. It's not exactly like the over 80 crowd makes for a more sympathetic jury profile from the perspective of a criminal defendant. Then again, if you get some old cranky stubborn type on a jury just about anything can happen. Maybe that's what they're going for. Obviously, the ends don't justify the means when it comes to all things legal and it's a good thing that they are rectifying this. There are many healthy active people in the 80 plus group who can handle jury service.

...the criminal defense bar likes to find any excuse possible to delay the inevitable.

Would you want to be represented by an attorney who did otherwise?

What I meant was if they have a defense on the merits that will get their client off, then why not take it trial as soon as possible? If the client is going to go to jail anyhow, why not get it over with, unless of course you are looking at a life sentence. The fact that there are 80 year olds and above in the jury pool doesn't seem to alter anything when it comes to the outcome of the case. Of course, if you can raise a speedy trial argument after making a stink about the lack of 80 somethings in the jury pool then it makes sense because it's a constitutional argument that is just as good as an acquittal. Delaying things just to delay things doesn't make sense, but then again I'm not a criminal defense guy. They probably have their reasons for their maneuvering which I assume revolve around the hope that witnesses (usually the victim) will become more reluctant, unavailable or less effective with the passage of time.