I’ve only made it as far as voir dire once, and I was the first juror kicked off by the prosecution. Probably for good reason; I was active in answering questions, I’m educated, and I had figured out from the voir dire questions that the prosecution didn’t have a case. Also, I used a legal term in answering a question, and the prosecutor pretended he didn’t understand it and made some joke to the other jurors. I knew at that point he had already decided he wanted me gone, since he wasn’t interested in my good opinion of him.
Yeah, your boss and like a million other people every day. And that’s the problem. Assume you’re a judge, and you handle maybe 40 trials a year, and in each trial you do voir dire with 100-200 people. After a couple of years, you’ve heard these same lame excuses from tons of people. I’ve seen judges handle jurors who make these kind of asinine comments, and it is usually a thing of beauty to watch. Suffice it to say that comments like that may not lead to the expected outcome.
And this is the smart way to handle things. First, it’s honest. delphica just answered the questions truthfully. Second, it makes the juror “an enemy” of one of the lawyers – and if a lawyer thinks a juror doesn’t like him, the lawyer wants the juror off. So much of a trial is about persuasion that a lawyer needs the jury to listen to and believe him – by correcting his grammar, the juror signals that s/he knows more than the lawyer.
I can say that while I too would like to be on a jury someday, I think it extremely unlikely I’d get selected. But I also know enough about how voir dire works and what goes into a trial that I could figure out what to say, truthfully, to ensure someone would strike me. Sadly, I don’t think I could do the opposite – figure out what to say, truthfully, to get myself ON the jury.
Actually, two things: jury nullification is the notion that a jury can believe that the defendant is guilty according to the law, but still refuse to apply the law to that defendant, for any reason whatsoever (not just that the law seems to be to that individual juror unjust). Second, it’s not really an “undisputed legal right” as it is illegal in at least California and most of the other American jurisdictions I’ve looked at. It’s only a “legal right” in the sense that it is very difficult to prove, because generally the juror at issue will lie under oath about what happened.