3 ms·

That's interesting, I wasn't aware. I had guessed the reason was that the lawyers looked at the journalist's background and writing, and both the defense and th

That's interesting, I wasn't aware. I had guessed the reason was that the lawyers looked at the journalist's background and writing, and both the defense and the prosecution concluded that he was more likely to be favorable to their own side, and that their arguments would not be harmed by having a persuasive domain expert on the jury. edit: and as you suggest, I'm sure my opinion is impacted by high-profile mistrials I've seen in the media

wahern 4y ago
Both sides usually get a set number of unchallengeable juror rejections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge Beyond those a request to reject is effectively at the discretion of the judge as it's relatively rare for a juror to unequivocally meet the legal standards for mandatory disqualification. So attorneys have to be judicious and, especially when they're nearing the end of jury selection, will often accept a juror they might have preferred to reject. It's not just the judge with which attorneys want to maintain good will. Both defense and prosecution will often cooperate to winnow down the jury pool before voir dire.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  I've been called for jury duty twice and been rejected for service twice by defense. I guess I'm too mean looking? I appreciated your explanation as it encapsulated my experience as well. I had very nice, even-keeled judge as well (for the jurors, not for the accused in particular) Much of our first day was spent with introductory speeches by defense and the prosecutor describing how "the courtroom isn't like TV"©.
  - bradknowles 4y ago
    I went in for jury duty on two separate occasions, in Austin, TX. In the first occasion, we were told by the judge that the case we had been assembled for was settled out of court that morning, so we were going to be used for a different case, involving potential parole for a person who had been convicted, and therefore any police officers in uniform were automatically excused. We were then told that the two sides had agreed to the terms, so it was basically going to be a formality in front of the jury, and so the first twelve people plus the alternates were to stay, since there wouldn't even be any interviews of the jurors to see if either side objected to anyone. I wasn't in the first set of people, so I and twenty or thirty other people just left. In the second occasion, we had a smaller group and only eight jurors were to be picked. The first thing the judge did was ask where a certain person was, and thanked him for his service as the chair of the law school for UT Austin, and noted that his term had coincidentally ended just that morning. He also excused the chairman emeritus. Serving military personnel were also thanked for their service and excused, due to the nature of the case. Then the lawyers started talking about the basics of the case. This was a personal injury case, and there were multiple parties being sued, who of course each had their own lawyers. All of the defendant lawyers seemed quite capable and very professional. However, the plaintiff lawyer was, to be kind, clearly an ambulance chaser. He kept saying stuff during the intro that he shouldn't be saying and some things were literally illegal to say, and the other lawyers and the judge kept calling him on that. After the intros were done, the judge asked if there was anyone in the room who still needed to be excused, and if so they would need to come up and explain it to him. I held up my hand, and was directed to approach the bench, along with the all of the lawyers. The judge asked me what was wrong, and since the guy was literally standing right next to me, I said "I'm sorry sir, but I have already taken a very intense disliking to one of the lawyers, and I'm afraid that I may not be able to be impartial with regards to anything they might say or do, to the detriment of their clients." The judge seemed quite surprised, and the lawyer for the plaintiff asked me if I could say who it was. Since he was standing right beside me, while looking straight at the judge, I said to him "with all due respect sir, I really don't think you want me to answer that question." The judge excused me, and I think I saw some light smiles on the faces of the other lawyers. As I walked out, I desperately wanted to tell the actual plaintiffs that they needed to get a better lawyer, but I kept my mouth shut. So far, that's been it.
    - bradknowles 4y ago
      I will say, in that second case, I did actually want to serve. I wanted to be sure that everyone got fair treatment, and that if the plaintiffs deserved a good settlement, that they would actually get one. Alas, that was not to be.

wahern 4y ago

Both sides usually get a set number of unchallengeable juror rejections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge Beyond those a request to reject is effectively at the discretion of the judge as it's relatively rare for a juror to unequivocally meet the legal standards for mandatory disqualification. So attorneys have to be judicious and, especially when they're nearing the end of jury selection, will often accept a juror they might have preferred to reject. It's not just the judge with which attorneys want to maintain good will. Both defense and prosecution will often cooperate to winnow down the jury pool before voir dire.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
I've been called for jury duty twice and been rejected for service twice by defense. I guess I'm too mean looking? I appreciated your explanation as it encapsulated my experience as well. I had very nice, even-keeled judge as well (for the jurors, not for the accused in particular) Much of our first day was spent with introductory speeches by defense and the prosecutor describing how "the courtroom isn't like TV"©.
- bradknowles 4y ago
  I went in for jury duty on two separate occasions, in Austin, TX. In the first occasion, we were told by the judge that the case we had been assembled for was settled out of court that morning, so we were going to be used for a different case, involving potential parole for a person who had been convicted, and therefore any police officers in uniform were automatically excused. We were then told that the two sides had agreed to the terms, so it was basically going to be a formality in front of the jury, and so the first twelve people plus the alternates were to stay, since there wouldn't even be any interviews of the jurors to see if either side objected to anyone. I wasn't in the first set of people, so I and twenty or thirty other people just left. In the second occasion, we had a smaller group and only eight jurors were to be picked. The first thing the judge did was ask where a certain person was, and thanked him for his service as the chair of the law school for UT Austin, and noted that his term had coincidentally ended just that morning. He also excused the chairman emeritus. Serving military personnel were also thanked for their service and excused, due to the nature of the case. Then the lawyers started talking about the basics of the case. This was a personal injury case, and there were multiple parties being sued, who of course each had their own lawyers. All of the defendant lawyers seemed quite capable and very professional. However, the plaintiff lawyer was, to be kind, clearly an ambulance chaser. He kept saying stuff during the intro that he shouldn't be saying and some things were literally illegal to say, and the other lawyers and the judge kept calling him on that. After the intros were done, the judge asked if there was anyone in the room who still needed to be excused, and if so they would need to come up and explain it to him. I held up my hand, and was directed to approach the bench, along with the all of the lawyers. The judge asked me what was wrong, and since the guy was literally standing right next to me, I said "I'm sorry sir, but I have already taken a very intense disliking to one of the lawyers, and I'm afraid that I may not be able to be impartial with regards to anything they might say or do, to the detriment of their clients." The judge seemed quite surprised, and the lawyer for the plaintiff asked me if I could say who it was. Since he was standing right beside me, while looking straight at the judge, I said to him "with all due respect sir, I really don't think you want me to answer that question." The judge excused me, and I think I saw some light smiles on the faces of the other lawyers. As I walked out, I desperately wanted to tell the actual plaintiffs that they needed to get a better lawyer, but I kept my mouth shut. So far, that's been it.
  - bradknowles 4y ago
    I will say, in that second case, I did actually want to serve. I wanted to be sure that everyone got fair treatment, and that if the plaintiffs deserved a good settlement, that they would actually get one. Alas, that was not to be.