From: louisnews@comcast.net
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 11:18:17 MDT
> I don't have much experience here, having only a single experience
> actually witnessing jury selection in a real court, but my concern was
> that the *prosecution* was dismissing any and all jurors that might have
> *helped* my friend (the one on trial).
I took a law class from an actual judge, so here is what I remember from
fifteen years ago...
Either side can dismiss a juror, if the judge agrees. (Having a bad
experience similar to the victim qualifies. Someone who has been raped
will quickly be removed from the jury of an accused rapist.)
Each side also gets a certain number (three?) dismissals, for no reason
at all. Neither the other side nor the judge has to agree. Each side
will used these dismissals to remove people they think won't be
sympathetic, whether or not their is reason to do so. (Common examples
of this type are removing certain genders or races from the jury.
Anyway, I think you only saw part of the process. The defense should
have gotten their turn, too, to dismiss jurors they didn't like.
> To me it seemed that prosecutors pretty much automatically requested to
> dismiss any potential juror who was a lawyer or had any legal education
> or skills whatsoever. Even a secretary who worked in a law office was
> dismissed.
Judge Antoon, who I took the class from, said this is common. The
lawyers on both sides want the jury to listen to them and accept their
version of what the law says. It scares them to think that someone on
the jury might interpret the law on their own. Both sides are more
scared of unpredicatable jurors than they are of the other side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:48 MST