Would it though? I’m not being obtuse or setting up a Gotcha here. I genuinely don’t know. I don’t see how having potential jurors recite factual information is in any way untoward. Now if the defendant were a devout Christian and an attorney had a juror repeat, say, “Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God…” that may be verboten…
I’m no lawyer, but I think you can ask them questions and stuff, but I doubt the whole “repeat after me” would fly. But I guess you never know till you try.
- What church do you attend?
- What are your primary sources for news? (Channels, websites, stations, friends, etc.)
- Have you ever voted for candidates from more than one political party, in an election?
- If you were tasked to referee an election, would you choose against your preferred candidate if the evidence showed that they had lost the vote?
- If your child, partner, or loved one was accused of a serious crime - like murder - how would you balance the needs of society to get closure and restitution, versus your desire to protect your child?
- None of your business
- All of the above.
- Sure.
- I don’t answer hypotheticals. I’d figure it out if I ever was in that position.
- See above.
What have you learned?
That the potential juror is hostile to the system, doesn’t want to be here, and should be dismissed.
I want someone who will be engaged, honest, and who seeks to help the system move forward with intellectual integrity. The person who gives those answers is not that person.
Nah. I think asking provocative questions gets provocative answers. Instead of question 2, I think “What magazines or newspapers have you subscribed to over the past 5 years?” would give you a more thoughtful and useful response.
That you’re not particularly concerned about being charged with contempt of court.
I can’t imagaine that your question
Would ever, ever be acceptable. It sure shouldn’t be.
Perhaps not. The only rule that I could find was that the question shouldn’t be too personal. Given that church going is a public activity, that anyone could witness, it seemed like it should be allowable and it would allow you to weed out Fundies and extremists.
But if it’s not allowed then it’s not allowed.
I was thinking more along the lines of separation of church and state.
I am wondering if people of protected classes are protected during the jury selection process? For example, if one of the lawyers dismisses a prospective juror “because we have enough [insert protected class] people on the jury already”. Religious affiliation is a protected class, right? Or can questions be asked about someone’s religion?
Yeah, you don’t even need the First Amendment for that one. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”, from Article VI. I’d definitely “none of your business” that one, if the judge or other lawyer didn’t beat me to it, and I’d instantly be rendered hostile to whichever side asked such a question.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2041&context=mlr
Religious challenges seem to be accepted. I don’t mind dropping the question, though, if the new Supreme Court seems likely to disapprove of the standard.
But if the judge was to ask why it matters, I would simply say that in the modern day there are many preachers - across a variety of religions and denominations - who are actively political and encourage their flock to hold certain views and to make certain political decisions. I want to be able to ensure that the juror won’t have a back-seat driver for a case that’s at high risk of influence from those with strong political views.
An alternate form of the question:
- Which people in your life (boss, spouse, preacher, friend, etc.) have strong political opinions and how would you avoid being influenced by them while under trial?
Answer - “As a juror, I’m required to not discuss this trial”
The juror did not answer the first part of the question and gave an evasive answer to the second part. This implies to me that, either, he does not feel that he can honestly answer the question and still be accepted onto the jury, that he is hostile to the proceedings, or simply can’t follow directions long enough to come up with a reasonable answer.
Obviously, you can’t just strike every candidate except Superman - he’s never going to come - but I can certainly form a priority order for everyone and slot this candidate at some reasonable level based on this answer and the answers to the other questions.
Another thread was just closed on a similar topic (“Voir dire questions for potential Trump criminal trial”).
That means, it I understand it, that we can also discuss what Trump’s lawyers should ask to identify jurors that already decided that DJT is crooked (even though this thread was originally about what the prosecution should do.).
Can either side ask, or check, to see if the potential juror made any contributions to Democratic candidates in recent years? From what I read, more Democrats than Republicans donate to candidates (with Democratic contributions smaller). So this might be good for the defense.
Would you have to use a preemptory to strike those jurors?
What about social media like this? Who is more likely to post, Democrats or Republicans? If Democrats post more, that would again give the Trump defense an angle, even if both sides tried the tactic. .
If you read the thread title, it doesn’t specify one side or the other.
Of course. But it’s not necessarily disqualifying. Remember that the only qualification is that a juror can promise to set aside any preconceived notions or bias to decide the case based solely on the facts and evidence presented to them in the courtroom.
Maybe. Jurors can be challenged for cause (usually out of the panel’s hearing), meaning one side or the other doesn’t believe the juror is sufficiently impartial to hear the case, or if the judge disagrees, the attorney for either side can burn a peremptory challenge.
Remember, jurors are not on trial. Only the defendant. If evidence is found on a social media site after a juror has said they haven’t posted such information, the judge will likely simply excuse them. Not grill them like they’re a defendant.
I’ll add that many prospective jurors sincerely believe they can be impartial, even if their background screams that they can’t. Judges are usually generous with ‘for cause’ challenges in a case like this one for just this reason.
I suspect that, for this trial, there would be an unusual number of panel members who wanted to get on that jury due to having a prior strong opinion. And they would know that that the way to get on the jury was to claim lack of bias.
So it could come down to which side of the panel lies more – the Trumpers, or those who already are convinced he should be held accountable. (Advantage defense?)
Or it could come down to which panelists are better at lying. (Advantage prosecution?)
Or it could come down to which side has better jury consultants. (No idea who would have the advantage.)
More than most trials, I’d think this one will come down to the voir dire.
I think you’d be surprised at how good highly skilled attorneys and judges are at ferreting out bias. You’d also be surprised at how many citizens take this duty very seriously. They really want to do a good, impartial job.
It’s disturbing to me how you assume sworn prospective jurors come into courtrooms to lie. It’s not like that.
There will also be many people who genuinely don’t want to serve on a case like this. They’re smart enough to realize it will change their lives forever.
I do agree that very careful jury selection is key to any case involving Trump. But that’s true for most cases, believe it or not. No lawyer is going to leave this issue to chance. I’ve said several times that picking a jury in Trump’s case will be the hardest part of the whole trial. But it’s not impossible.