I always thought (at least in California?) that either attorney could dismiss any number of prospective jurors for cause. They also each have a limited number of “peremptory challenges” where they can dismiss prospective jurors without stating a reason.
Is that correct? Is it true elsewhere too?
It is as far as I know. IANAL but I worked as a paralegal for years.
Varies by country. Very strict in the UK: virtually nothing is said about a case between charging someone and the start of the trial. What’s described in the OP might risk a case collapsing, (for a police official) disciplinary action, maybe even contempt of court. But it could vary according to the circumstances. On the other hand, there have been cases where tabloid-style reporting on a suspect in a high-profile case sailed very close to the wind.
Usually the police keep the progress of their investigation under wraps, though there are various forms of words that are understood to imply rather more than the neutral surface meaning. If it gets about that you’re “helping the police with their enquiries”, you probably need a lawyer. There is also a (to me) strange recent convention where the senior police officer on a case delivers almost a homily to the media once a sentence has been handed down: to me, that’s the judge’s job.
Elsewhere, in at least France and Italy, there seems to be more information revealed about investigations as they proceed, and much freer discussion in the media of each new twist and turn of the investigators’ attention.
Not if the courts don’t allow it. Obviously it depends on the court system but there’s no right to conduct an unfair trail by the government, regardless of who messed up.
I believe some level of peremptory challenges are allowed in all jurisdictions, but they can be ruled against if there is evidence of using them to eliminate a protected class (race, ethnicity, gender). It’s typically a set number, not unlimited.
As a former, longtime prosecutor, I would be absolutely livid if my sheriff held that kind of press conference. I was always lucky enough to have reasonable sheriffs, police department heads, and (for the most part) police officers who were smart enough to listen to us about pre-trial (and even pre-charging) publicity. It does absolutely no good whatsoever, and only provides fodder for the defense counsel at pre-trial hearing and the trial itself.
Idiot sheriff. I hope the prosecutor (who I don’t know, but don’t have a ton of faith in) has some stern words for him.
Charges means next to nothing, many jurisdictions pile on as many charges as possible. Convictions are another story.
My personal record for convictions was a guy who had 54 prior convictions (which I would guess, would mean around 200 “charges”, 36 of which were felonies (he also had 63 children). But they were almost all non-violent thefts, burglaries (not home invasions), driving violations, and drug crimes. We tried everything for this guy: drug court, domestic violence court, diversion court, multiple prison terms. He just didn’t give a crap and would flunk out or get released and go back to stealing things and doing drugs. He was absolutely, a career criminal. But our police force wouldn’t hold press conference to call him evil, so there is that.
The problem is when you have the same people who are being unfair deciding whether they are being unfair.
Paralegal and RN. Wow!
I bow to your superior dedication to your fellow humans and to your quest for learning.
But I question your skill in finding low-stress work where you’re not shat upon by both the customers and the bosses. 
This is absolutely true. Hopefully, in those cases appeals to higher courts (or from state to federal courts) are available.
Where did he find the time for a life of crime as well?
In the US, unlimited dismissals for cause. That means you show that that person could not be a fair juror. This is required by the due process clause.
Peremptory challenges are a separate thing, in which each side has a limited number of times they can have a panel member dismissed without cause. So, if you are unable to show that the person can’t be a fair juror, or you just think they would be less likely to find in your side’s favor, and you like better the person who is next up in the panel. As mentioned, these challenges can be used for any reason, and the reason need not be disclosed, except that they cannot be used in a prohibited discriminatory fashion. If it looks like the prosecutor is eliminating all of the African American panel members, then they can be made to disclose their reasons, and if they look like a pretext, that’s not allowed.
I can’t watch the video right now, but it sounds over the top, with calling someone evil, etc. But just generally, law enforcement doesn’t have to call an arrestee the “alleged” perpetrator, e.g. They are the ones doing the alleging. And jurors would expect that the police that arrested someone think they are guilty. So a sheriff simply saying something like, “we caught the guy who was (doing x, y, z crimes)” would not normally be an issue, I think. But it sounds like this is exponentially more than that, which is inappropriate.
I wonder if FL has a law enforcement certification body that could sanction him.
ETA: reporters should say “alleged” because it hasn’t been proven, it’s just alleged by the state.
Done as badly as possible, male parenting can be reduced to a few minutes per child. So 4-ish hours out of his life spent parenting and all the rest is available for crime, drinking, being in jail, etc. You know, the important things. :smack:
We have a family in Australia with a genetic condition that manifests in increasingly unregulated behavior after about the age of ?? 35 ??. Normal childhood and early adult life, then at some state, brain failure, wild behavior, a number of unplanned children, and early death.
The genetic link was identified some 40 years ago, so presumably the individuals involved are taking pre-emptive precautions now – I haven’t heard anything in the interim, but medical privacy is much stricter now.
True dat! As a paralegal the 4 lawyers I worked for were the LGBTQA+ firm in the city-having experienced being shit on personally, they were the last bosses who would do that to staff. Those were great years.
As a nurse bosses tended to be either very bad or surprisingly good and real humans. With far more ruthless ones of the former sort and also far more common, but the clients made up for the bad ones. Clients and families were always what I stuck around for.
Librarian was what I would have chosen had nursing not been possible. I’d love to hear from a librarian what that is really like.
63 x 10 minutes? 630 minutes, that’s less than 11 hours total. I think we can assume he was not going for quality over quantity.