They also misspelled “potential”, so I’m going to guess just phone typing or similar.
I didn’t bring that up because the i is so close to the o.
I’ve served on juries, so I should remember but I don’t: do the judge’s instructions to the potential jurors include a warning about the penalty for lying during voir dire (which are what, exactly?) and a reminder that the lawyers can research whether what they say (about their bumper stickers, magazine subscription history, internet posts) is accurate?
In a case where you’re trying unusually hard to vet people for their empathy for pathological lying, I’d want them full of fear of spending time behind bars, but how far can you go in this regard?
I was once seated in he jury box for a racially-tinged murder case; the defendant was black. This was the Monday following the Martin-Zimmerman fiasco. During the questioning of the prospective jurors, the judge asked each juror in as neutral a tone as he could “do you think the criminal justice system can be fair, and anyone can get a fair trial, regardless of their race?”
Some of the perspective jurors answered with long-winded explanations, even though they were not asked to expand on it. I think some of them just wanted to please the judge.
When it was my turn, he asked the question to me, and I gave a one-word response, without the further elaboration. I was excused after the next break (which I was thankful).
Anyway, I think a fair question is: “was 2020 election fair and the outcome is legitimate?” They can and should also ask about knowledge of how our government works, like “what are the three branches of our government? Do you know what each does?” And “what do you think are the top three issues in our nation right now?” Or “do you think the criminal justice system can be fair, and anyone can get a fair trial, regardless of political affiliation?”
I agree a casual survey of someone’s social media activity would likely tell the court everything they need to know.
How about “Which of the three branches of government, if any, do you trust more than the other two? Which do you trust the least?”
I’m not sure what this question is going to elicit, but almost any answer will reveal something.
On my jury services, I was in the room when other potential underwent voir dire. Is this a requirement of the process? Can questions be posed on an individual basis, logistically annoying as that might be? I could formulate my own answers to such questions I was hearing in advance, which could be helpful to someone looking to game the system.
Was a trial lawyer. A prosecutor for awhile a bit ago.
The misspelling was the product of phone typing in bed right before sleep. If you have any further concerns about my veracity, feel free to PM me.
“If Barack Obama were to take nuclear secret documents to his private residence after he left the White House, would you vote to convict him?” Any juror who answers “yes” immediately, straightaway, is suspect, especially if he/she does so with visible enthusiasm.
Is this deliberately wrong? Trying for humor? Because I’m a big Obama fan, and I would definitely answer “yes” quickly, especially if you’d put something in there about “illegally” and “proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
Dang. He took it the wrong way.
If I was asked If I could make an impartial decision based on the evidence presented I would say no. I know the guy is guilty as shit for this and many, many other crimes.
It would have to be absolutely positively overwhelming evidence that he had nothing to do with it to vote not guilty. And such evidence would be very, very hard to believe.
I couldn’t live with myself if I voted not guilty.
What say you dopers?
As an example, I certainly think that Trump was up to no good, pressuring Ukraine to produce evidence against the Biden family. However, the House managers didn’t really present any compelling evidence of that during the impeachment trial - I’m not sure that ever even mentioned Giuliani nor Lev Parnas - so…I wouldn’t have given it to them.
You have to prove your case. Trying to skip by without having to do that is how you end up giving up a law career and going into politics, I guess.
I’d say I don’t understand your point here. Are you saying that no evidence could possibly meet your standard of “evidence presented”? How can you know in voir dire what evidence will be presented in the trial? Or are you saying you’re too biased to serve on a jury in this case?
As an example of what?
As I said they would have to present absolutely overwhelming evidence that he is not guilty. If that happened, yes I could vote not guilty. I’d also like a unicorn.
He has already said himself that he wants the documents that he stole back.
You realize that’s the opposite of what jurors are supposed to do, right? “Innocent until proven guilty”, right? It’s not “guilty until proven innocent.” I would need to bounce you from the jury, even though you’re my ideal voter (speaking as the DoJ lawyer here). You make it too easy to disqualify yourself.
I’m being honest. As I said, the evidence would have to be absolutely overwhelming to prove his innocence. If someone confessed that they stole the documents, and secretly hid them on Trumps property while he was in NY or Antarctica or something. I wouldn’t believe them for a second.
Trump has all but made a written, signed confession to this. It’s exactly like something he would do.
Cite? Not that I don’t believe you, I’d just like to read it.
Ask their opinions on a number of conspiracy theories, including
- JFK assassination
- 9/11 inside job
- Moon Landing hoax
- Flat earth
- holocaust denial
Exclude anyone conspiracy-prone.
That’s cool. Honest people disqualify themselves from jury service all the time. I’m looking for the opposite here, of course: how dishonest Trumpies might try to insinuate themselves on a jury and how they could be sussed out effectively.
Mmm, probably not. It’s not an adversarial process or intended to embarrass the prospective jurors.
As @Hamlet points out, the goal for the lawyers is to build rapport with the jurors, not alienate them. Usually the questions – whether by questionnaire or regular oral voir dire – are more subtle.
I’m glad @Hamlet brought up the jury nullification issue. That’s a good one for weeding out the types who have no intention of respecting the court’s authority or the rules of evidence. If they have to ask, “What’s jury nullification?”, so much the better.
ETA: I once had a close friend who was in a jury pool for a trial I was working on. He was a big believer in jury nullification, quite proud of himself for it, in fact. I was amazed when the lawyers accepted him as a regular juror. But in the end, after all the evidence had been presented, he did his job as required and found no need to exercise his beliefs in jury nullification.