Comments on: Peremptory Challenges Revisited

By: Michael Kraemer

Michael Kraemer — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:25:24 +0000

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:33:40 +0000

Peremptory challenges sole purpose is to stack the jury.

If the purpose were to get a fair and representative jury that represents the community, then there would be no such thing as a Death Qualified Jury.

Select 12 random good citizens and you will have several who will NEVER participate in putting someone to death.

If the purpose were to get a fair and representative jury that represents the community, then it would be almost impossible to convict on pot possession.

Select 12 random good citizens and you will have a few current or former pot smokers, and several who think pot smoking is no big deal.

If the jury were truly representative of the community, as demanded by Batson and any sense of fair play, then death penalty cases would not exist, and pot possession cases would be unlikely to ever succeed.

Jury independence is further crippled by the judges power to withhold true facts from the jury. See Ed Rosenthal’s case for a great example of the arrogance of the judge in withholding exculpatory true facts from the jury.

Under our system of justice, the power to convict is held by ordinary citizens. Since our’s is a system of checks and balances, this makes sense. The state, the judiciary, and the lawyers have gutted this critical power of the citizens.

Having the power to stack the jury and stack the facts is indeed the power to get any verdict one desires.

By: hunterm

hunterm — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:26:14 +0000

I was told by a lawyer that lawyers don’t want preachers to be on a jury because they seem to see things as right and wrong with little wiggle room.

By: Neffs

Neffs — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:45:40 +0000

I was pretty nonplussed about the whole thing–I was just up for federal district court and got dismissed at the last minute. I was kind of afraid of that one because those sound like they could be awhile.

By: D. M. Manes

D. M. Manes — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:25:20 +0000

Did you want to be on the jury? I really want to be on one. That probably means they will strike me. “freak! Who WANTS to be on a jury?”

By: Neffs

Neffs — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:17:07 +0000

I got struck once in traffic court for being a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and being related to a patrolman. Both of those would be legitimate.

By: D. M. Manes

D. M. Manes — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:24:34 +0000

I don’t know about an exhaustive list, but these come to mind:

If the juror has an apparent conflict of interest. For instance, a significant shareholder of a corporation would be stricken from the jury in a trial where the corporation is a party.

If the juror has a current or prior relationship with the parties.

If the juror expresses prejudicial attitudes or prejudicial attitudes can be reasonably inferred. For instance, if the juror admits to hating all black people, he may not be the best fact finder when a black defendant is on trial. Or, if the juror admits to being an active member in the KKK, it would be the same thing.

Maybe I’ll come back with more, but when I have come across lists, they seem to cover any conceivable legitimate reason for striking an individual juror because that individual is likely to be biased in the case. It isn’t a good enough reason, though, to base it on stereotypes.

By: Brian Manes

Brian Manes — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:26:31 +0000

Just curious, what are legitimate reasons for striking a juror?

By: D. M. Manes

D. M. Manes — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:26:32 +0000

I think this is kind of interesting. The original article was only viewed 31 times in the month it was published (It’s not as much of a hot button issue as some others I guess). But since then, it has been viewed almost 1000 times and continues to be searched almost every day.

There aren’t many people involved in this discussion, but there is a steady stream of interest in it that may someday grow to push reform.