A jury was seated late Tuesday evening in the heated child custody battle involving the two young children of Lee Gilley and Christa Bauer despite a pause in Gilley’s Harris County criminal case amid an international extradition battle with Italy.
About 91 prospective jurors were brought into the ceremonial courtroom in the Harris County Civil Courthouse Tuesday morning for the voir dire process, which lasted all day.
The child custody trial is beginning although no resolution has been reached in Gilley’s criminal case. He’s accused of strangling his pregnant wife, Bauer, inside the family’s home in the Heights in Oct. 2024.
Earlier this year, Gilley cut off his ankle monitor and fled to Italy weeks before the capital murder trial was scheduled to begin. An Italian court ruled this week he could be extradited to the U.S., but only on a lesser charge of murder, in which he would face a lesser punishment than death or life without parole.
In the family case, the jury will have to decide whether the soon-to-be 4-year-old and 6-year-old surviving children will live with their maternal grandparents or their paternal uncle and aunt, the brother and sister-in-law of Gilley.
Judge Angela Lancelin has made it clear the murder case will not be tried in her courtroom, as attorneys now do a delicate dance with words surrounding the criminal allegations.
Although Lee Gilley is not seeking custody of the children, his civil attorney Matt Mahoney is still representing him in the case and asked questions of the prospective jurors.
Mahoney focused on prospective jurors’ prior knowledge of the highly publicized murder case and their ability to set aside media coverage, online information, and personal opinions when evaluating the evidence.
Most prospective jurors said they didn’t recognize the name Lee Gilley, but about a quarter of the potential jurors raised their cards when asked if they knew about a guy who cut off his ankle monitor and went to Italy. A few of the potential jurors admitted to Googling Gilley’s name during the lunch break, just a day after an Italian court’s extradition ruling made headlines.
Mahoney questioned jurors about potential biases stemming from allegations against the children’s father, whether sympathy for the maternal grandparents could influence their decision-making, and whether they had preconceived views about who should receive custody.
Throughout the questioning, he emphasized that the case was ultimately about deciding what outcome would be in the best interests of the two children rather than judging the conduct of absent parents or other family members.
Attorney Dennis Slate, representing the brother and sister-in-law of Lee Gilley seeking custody, sought to identify jurors who may have entered the case with a preference for the maternal grandparents or who might be influenced by sympathy over the loss of the children’s mother. His questioning focused on whether jurors could evaluate both families solely on their ability to provide for the children’s long-term needs and best interests.
Slate questioned whether jurors could could separate Matthew and Cristin Gilley from allegations and publicity involving Lee Gilley. He probed whether prospective jurors would hold negative views of the North Carolina couple because of their relationship to Lee Gilley or concerns arising from events outside the custody case.
Attorney Angela Stout, representing the maternal grandparents Chris and Sharon Bauer, questioned prospective jurors on their beliefs about family caregiving, the role of grandparents and extended family in raising children, parental fitness, domestic violence, grief and family support systems, child protection, loyalty to family members accused of wrongdoing, and the standards jurors would use when deciding what arrangement is in the best interests of young children.
Stout asked about jurors’ views and experiences involving family caregiving, domestic violence, grief and custody disputes—and how those might affect their assessment of the children’s best interests.
Stout also explored jurors’ personal experiences with crime, custody disputes, loss, and domestic violence to determine whether those experiences might influence their evaluation of the evidence.
An amicus attorney, Amy Carlin, has been appointed in the case to represent the best interest of the children.
Slate asked whether jurors might view Carlin as more neutral because she was court-appointed. Carlin briefly discussed stability and explained that she advocates for the children’s best interests, not either side.
The parties agreed to strike only seven prospective jurors before battling it out over dozens more over perceived biases attorneys interpreted during questioning.
Many jurors got dismissed after getting another round of questions about their previously shared biases toward Bauer’s parents and feeling that they should automatically be able to care for the children after suffering the loss of their daughter.
Some grew frustrated with the additional questioning from attorneys as the process dragged past 6:30 p.m.
Jurors started being selected around 7:30 p.m. after the sun had set.
Ultimately, eight men and six women were picked. The jury is made up of 12 people and two alternates.
Judge Lancelin reminded the jurors not to discuss the case or look the case up online.
Opening statements are scheduled for Wednesday morning at 9:30 a.m.
