4 ms·

Moreover, jury selection is a touchy subject itself. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/discrimination-jury-selection.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycl

Moreover, jury selection is a touchy subject itself. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/discrimination-jury-selection.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/discrimination-jury-s... > In order to show that the prosecutor’s dismissal of a juror was discriminatory, a defendant must show that it was based on race, ethnicity, or gender. A good legal defense is already out of reach of many people. I'd think this alone (fta) should cause a judge to throw out the prosecution from the case: > The first thing the prosecutor did during voir dire was ask all the men of color whether we trusted cops. Every black man had a story: police harassment, spurious arrests, intimidation.

ckozlowski 11y ago
That the defense didn't object to this, or ask the alternate ("Does anyone in here intrinsically trust the police?") perplexes me.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > That the defense didn't object to this, or ask the alternate ("Does anyone in here intrinsically trust the police?") perplexes me. Actually, it didn't occur to me. You made it sound very simple but I didn't see it as a possibility at all. So if someone says yes, we just throw them out of the jury. Now I think this should be a standard question for any case where the police is a witness. Well, on second thought, we will probably still need a sympathetic judge if we are throwing out someone "with cause". There are only so many we can throw out without a cause.
  - mszkoda 11y ago
    I thought this was commonly asked, but maybe it varies by state. In my city in Pennsylvania we get a standardized form that does ask this question. It states, "Would you be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or any other law enforcement officer because of his or her job?" [1] [1]http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter6/s632.html http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter6/s632.html
    - 4ad 11y ago
      So what kind of answer are they expecting for that question? I genuinely can't tell. It seems obvious to me that people who answer "yes" should be excluded, yet I feel the opposite is true.

ckozlowski 11y ago

That the defense didn't object to this, or ask the alternate ("Does anyone in here intrinsically trust the police?") perplexes me.

newjersey 11y ago
> That the defense didn't object to this, or ask the alternate ("Does anyone in here intrinsically trust the police?") perplexes me. Actually, it didn't occur to me. You made it sound very simple but I didn't see it as a possibility at all. So if someone says yes, we just throw them out of the jury. Now I think this should be a standard question for any case where the police is a witness. Well, on second thought, we will probably still need a sympathetic judge if we are throwing out someone "with cause". There are only so many we can throw out without a cause.
- mszkoda 11y ago
  I thought this was commonly asked, but maybe it varies by state. In my city in Pennsylvania we get a standardized form that does ask this question. It states, "Would you be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or any other law enforcement officer because of his or her job?" [1] [1]http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter6/s632.html http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter6/s632.html
  - 4ad 11y ago
    So what kind of answer are they expecting for that question? I genuinely can't tell. It seems obvious to me that people who answer "yes" should be excluded, yet I feel the opposite is true.