That case might be extreme. The probing nature of the questions was well-reported locally.
Juror #22 became famous:
However, he was subsequently disqualified for claiming to have got a baseball scholarship from a college that does not even have a baseball program. Apparently he is not the only person who can tell when someone is lying.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has made an interesting series about the case in their Breakdown podcast series (modeled on Serial). This case was season 2. Season 1 is good also.
That’s essentially what happened to me. This was a civil trial (person A suing persons B, C and D for medical malpractice). During the jury selection process, the judge asked all of the prospective jurors en masse to raise their hands if they knew any of the following people (names then recited one at a time). Every potential juror who raised his or her hand at the mention of any name was dismissed.
Then about two days into the trial someone mentioned where one of the defendants was working at the time, and I realized that was the pediatrician’s group that we sent our kids to. At the next break I told the bailiff my situation, and soon I found myself in the judge’s chambers with the judge and the principal lawyers for each side. They asked me a bunch of questions and they all agreed that this wouldn’t prejudice my eventual decision and I stayed on the jury.
(I really didn’t know and had never met the person in question; our kids went to another doctor in the group.)
I’ve gone through the jury selection process a number of times, and have been asked whether I or anyone I knew had been the victim of a violent crime, whether I or anyone I knew was involved in specific professions (police, medical, legal, etc), whether I or anyone I knew had endured various medical conditions. Nothing all that personal, and in all cases the questions were somewhat related to the case at hand.
I was on one where they asked if any juror knew any of the defendants, plaintiffs, or lawyers in the room. None of them did.
Well I was just a backup, and while I didnt know the lawyers personally, I knew of one lawyers reputation from the media as a prominent civil rights attorney.
So the question is, if they asked me do I know the lawyer PERSONALLY or by REPUTATION, is that the same thing?
When I went through voir dire, people that answered yes to questions like that would get a follow up, such as “How do you know the person?”. If it was mere by reputation, I imagine they would ask what his reputation meant to you and if you could set that aside for the trial.
I was called to jury duty for a child molestation/murder case. (I was not selected) One of the questions was if you had ever been raped or molested. The attorneys were understanding that it was sensitive but they still asked for a summary from anyone that said yes. One woman said she’d be raped and the prosecutor asked if she felt the justice system got her justice. She said no as her father got to the guy and killed him before the cops could find him. Prosecutor then asked if justice was served in her father’s case. She said no, as he was currently in jail for that killing. She was still selected for the jury :eek:
Are there any questions that the can’t force you to answer by charging you with contempt if you don’t. For example, it would seem to me they should not be able to ask you if you committed a crime and had not been caught as admitting to that would be self-incrimination. Similarly, it would seem they could not force me to tell whom I voted for or intend to vote for as we have at least an implied right to a secret ballot.
I should clarify, they do ask those questions here as well, but it’s at the same time as the judge is doing the “Anyone got any very good reasons they can’t be on the jury?” thing once the jurors are in the jury box.
Really? When I’ve been up for jury duty the basics of the case and the identity of the defendant was read to us, and the defendant was sitting there. And I was in the pool for two murder cases. I believe that the defendant has the right to be at the trial, all parts of it, and jury selection is definitely a part of it. Perhaps in your case the defendant did not want to attend, but that isn’t the normal situation in my experience of four criminal trials.
Now that I think about it, I was misremembering. We were asked if we knew the defendant (along with the judge, lawyers, etc), which means that he must have been there during the question session.
Northern Piper can you tell me, is this info pretty accurate for Canada too? Same sorts of questions and answers, etc? (Just got notice to be at the courthouse in October.)
I’ve often wondered why there should be any questioning of jurors at all, given that you should face a jury of your peers randomly selected. Why should prosecution and defense get to cherry-pick ones they like? Does ths custom go very far back into Anglo-American jurisprudence or is it a relatively modern thing?
The way challenges work, you don’t pick the ones you like, you excuse the ones you don’t like. After both parties do that, what’s left is a group neither party would have chosen, but one that often does a fair job.
I was once asked if I was ever the victim in a criminal case, and I was… For very personal reasons. The judge asked me to approach the bench, and I told him the very personal reason, and he dismissed me.
In the ACT, so presumably elsewhere, there’s also the challenge system, where each side can just reject a juror out of hand. So a kind of vetting, but without the grilling.