From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 14:08:42 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 11:40 pm, Damien
> Broderick wrote:
> > BTW, I like your idea that citizens should be able
> to challenge
> > rejection
> > from jury service.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.
> When picking out
> juries, we are more concerned with the defendant's
> right to a jury of
> their peers. There is no right to serve on a jury
> just because one
> wants to. In the case where the defendant doesn't
> want a particular
> juror, we err on the side of dismissing the juror.
If a defendant wants a jury of his or her peers, they
(the jurors) should all be exactly what s/he pretends
to be if s/he is pleading innocent and claiming to be
an upstanding law abiding citizen: well groomed,
gainfully employed, educated, intelligent, involved
citizens who understand what the law is and means.
If I am that sort of person, neither side should have
any excuse or ability to reject me unless they can
show that I am prejudicial to the case.
This is EXACTLY what a jury of one's peers is.
If this were how it were done, OJ would never have
gotten off, and granny wouldn't have gotten $6 million
for spilling mcdonalds coffee in her own lap.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:48 MST