4 ms·
If dismissing people for felonies was a valid cause by itself, then this law would be completely meaningless, that wouldn't escape a judge overseeing the procee
by throwaway2048 7y ago
If dismissing people for felonies was a valid cause by itself, then this law would be completely meaningless, that wouldn't escape a judge overseeing the proceedings.
- gnicholas 7y agoI would guess that some felons might make it onto a jury with a felony that was (1) a long time ago, (2) completely unrelated to the felony alleged in the current trial, and (3) generally regarded to be a more minor crime. But I would guess that few felons will make it onto juries, and the ones that do will endure embarrassing questions during jury selections, in front of a room full of their peers, about their past crimes and whether or not they are now sufficiently honest citizens.
- iudqnolq 7y agoRight now having a felon relative is a valid cause. And maybe this law being completely meaningless is the point? A judge doesn't (generally) get to decide a law is a dumb lie so it should be interpreted to be stronger than it really is.
- gamblor956 7y agoThere are two types of jury trials in CA. Criminal trials where felons would generally not be permitted to serve on juries for the same reason that police officers aren't, and civil trials, which conviction status doesn't matter.