Why in the world would HN readers not be eligible to serve on a jury.
I was on a jury trial when a spouse of a prosecutor office employee was allowed on. People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool.
I imagine it being the side that isn't confident in its technical position that doesn't like technical people on juries.
Usually, there's a limited number each side can dismiss without cause. To dismiss more than that, they have to convince the judge that the juror will not honestly decide the case according to the evidence and the law.
It’s more that they don’t want specialized knowledge spoiling the deliberation.
If I’m an expert in cellular towers, you don’t want me contradicting the expert on cellular towers testimony on the basis of the magic knowledge that I claim to have.
Sit through jury selection and you'll see people vastly overestimate their ability to convince a prosecutor that they truly believe that.
When I observed jury selection I saw several people back down from stances that were clearly attempts to get kicked off the jury.
It's not like the lawyers ask one question then dismiss you.
I did see one guy who claimed he believed "all courts are invalid" hold up to some pretty intense questioning before getting dismissed. But by the grin on his face I could tell he relished winning that one.
Seemed like the attorneys and judge knew what was up.
The reasons that seemed to get a quick dismissal were people who had been victims of crime in the past, people who had family members who were police officers, lawyers, judges. People who held not uncommon beliefs that would bias them (e.g. "I believe that people of color can't get a fair trial"), but not always if the juror said they could make a decision without that bias clouding their judgement.
The ones that picked extreme beliefs just got more questioning until they either admitted their belief wouldn't cloud their judge or that their belief wasn't so extreme as to bias them.
I mean, the judge and lawyers question people for a living, so they know exactly how to drill down and force an answer out.
On the trial I was on the judge literally said the words “the next person that tries to get out of this jury for bogus reasons is getting cited for contempt”.
No one, not the judge, the prosecutors or the defense want jury selection to take a long time and there are only so many people in the pool to choose from.
That said, on a different trial, a serial killer, it took almost 6 weeks to panel a jury. I was there for a week before being dismissed because I’m morally against the death penalty. Even then the judge interviewed me for 30 minutes on this point, including about my religious upbringing as a child.
The reason they ask you questions like whether or not you would be able to find someone guilty if you knew they might get sentenced to death isn't because they want to put you in jail overnight. They just don't want you on the jury.
You can certainly say you won't vote to convinct under any circumstances during voir dire.
It's not illegal in any way. It won't get you thrown in jail for contempt. It is probably protected by the first ammendment to say so. It will get you excluded from the jury.
People do it all the time, in fact.
The exact standard questions asked of jurors in voir dire vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually include some variation of if there any religious, philosophical, or ethical reasons you could not convict (or not acquit) generally.
I mean, imagine if you had philosophical, ethical, or reliigous reasons you couldn't convict under any circumstances and you wound up on the jury anyway! If you didn't tell the court this when asked and wound up on the jury cause you lied about it... you probably still wouldn't actually be considered in contempt, but it'd be bad.
I wonder whether that strongly suggests that most people (everyone?) who serves on the jury for a 1st degree murder case then believes the death penalty is just.
This is complete BS and I would posit you’re just making things up. Link me to an article about a potential juror spending at least one night in jail due to saying they won’t convict during pre-trial jury selection.
Sure: just search for [voir dire contempt]. The first SERP for me had a law firm page with examples when I looked earlier this evening. I'm not saying it's likely, for what it's worth, but if you lie to avoid jury selection (which is what they're going to think you're doing), it's a possibility.
I got that SERP. The examples are all cases against courts for various violations during _voir dire_. I did not see a single example of a potential juror being jailed for contempt before the trial even started. This isn’t surprising; why would the judge bother holding someone in contempt rather than just moving onto the next potential juror in the pool? It’s not like there is a risk of mistrial from the actions of someone not even participating in it yet.
I'm a prison abolitionist who believes the police are generally too powerful and have too many incentives to lie under oath. If a lawyer asked me about these things during jury selection I strongly suspect they'd move me out.
Expect to be grilled on this subject, including being asked to cite instances where you’ve taken actions (protested, worked for legislation, volunteered, etc) based on those beliefs.
That may catch someone trying to just bluff their way through things and fumbles on obvious lies, but if you actually believe this kind of thing and still say "nothing" I'm guessing they'll believe.
There are certainly beliefs you can hold that will get you removed. But the courts have heard them all before. Further those beliefs are pretty far out on the scales.
Just saying you don’t trust police isn’t enough.
You are more likely to get kicked off for a specific profession than a stated belief.
I was on a jury trial when a spouse of a prosecutor office employee was allowed on. People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool.