4 ms·

This is called voire dire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Voir_dire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Voir_dire The plaintiff / defense

This is called voire dire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Voir_dire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection#Voir_dire The plaintiff / defense teams are allowed to remove an limited number of jurors unless the removal is among a list of valid exempt causes (in which case the removal is exempt from the limit). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge The process can become very very thought out in high profile cases - there are psychologists hired to advise litigators on how favorable a potential jury member might be, and the list of potential jurors for a given day can be retrieved ahead of time and background checks run each one (all within the rules). Here is an intresting article from one of these "Jury experts" discussing the process: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/youraba/201103article01.html http://www.americanbar.org/publications/youraba/201103articl...

ams6110 15y ago
I would say that with the rise of facebook and other social media, it's easier than ever before for both the prosecution and the defense to be able to develop a very good profile of the potential jurors. And if one side or the other does not have the resources or expertise to do so, they could be at a serious disadvantage before the trial even starts.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  I was selected on a jury once, but only just barely. It was a drug-related case, and the defense attorney challenged the prosecution, who had made a peremptory challenge to remove me from the jury. His argument was that I was the only one even close to the age of the defendant left on the jury, and that by removing me he would be removing all of the defendant's "peers." (He was young; I was young.) The prosecutor withdrew his challenge, and I stayed. Funny thing was, I was pretty anti-drug at the time, so it could have backfired. But I ended up being the jury foreman and we acquitted without much debate after someone decided to ask if anyone in the room actually thought he was guilty. They didn't really have anything on the kid; the trial was a total waste of taxpayer's money. But you have an excellent point: If anyone writes online about supporting jury nullification, odds are good they'll get a challenge-for-cause any time they're in jury selection. At least if they're easily traced by name to those comments.

ams6110 15y ago

I would say that with the rise of facebook and other social media, it's easier than ever before for both the prosecution and the defense to be able to develop a very good profile of the potential jurors. And if one side or the other does not have the resources or expertise to do so, they could be at a serious disadvantage before the trial even starts.

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
I was selected on a jury once, but only just barely. It was a drug-related case, and the defense attorney challenged the prosecution, who had made a peremptory challenge to remove me from the jury. His argument was that I was the only one even close to the age of the defendant left on the jury, and that by removing me he would be removing all of the defendant's "peers." (He was young; I was young.) The prosecutor withdrew his challenge, and I stayed. Funny thing was, I was pretty anti-drug at the time, so it could have backfired. But I ended up being the jury foreman and we acquitted without much debate after someone decided to ask if anyone in the room actually thought he was guilty. They didn't really have anything on the kid; the trial was a total waste of taxpayer's money. But you have an excellent point: If anyone writes online about supporting jury nullification, odds are good they'll get a challenge-for-cause any time they're in jury selection. At least if they're easily traced by name to those comments.