3 ms·

A prosecutor's guide to winning in voir dire: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/ORANGE_Training_Material_VoirDire_05.01.2015.pdf https://www.aclunc.or

• IshKebab 5y ago
  Very interesting read, thanks! Lots of weaponised logical fallacies.
• epicureanideal 5y ago
  I wonder if we would get better outcomes if the jury were randomly selected. Otherwise based on this link we don’t seem to be getting a jury of our peers, but a jury of selected peers with specific biases not present in the same proportion as the general population.
  • mnrode 5y ago
    AFAIK, the idea is that both sides, defense and prosecution, are part of that selection process. The prosecution may want to eject every juror that does not believe the testimony of police officers, but the defense wants to keep those jurors in. Both sides keep each other in check. A totally random jury selection could cause issues. For example, when it comes to a murder trial where race is a big issue, the prosecution and/or the defense may not want someone in the jury that is openly racist.
    • stickfigure 5y ago
      You're right, but in fact the judge can put their finger on one side of the scales. I was in voir dire for an obvious drug prosecution and before selection began, the judge eliminated anyone who thought the laws should be changed. That was in the late 90s in a (US) federal court.
    • lugged 5y ago
      We don't live in a binary world. All this does is push precedent in one of two directions.
  • bsder 5y ago
    I would go with random but with limited strikes on prosecution and unlimited strikes for defense. I want to bias things in favor of defense. If the prosecution can't make the case given all their advantages, they should fail.