I’m reading about the jury selection process and came up with a discussion question for you [all four of you]. Possible jurors may be excluded from a trial for a number of reasons that boil down to conflict of interest. Well, here’s a conflict I’d like to see happen. What happens when lawyers and judges are called to jury duty? Is that a conflict? After all, lawyers and judges can see right through the prosecution’s and defense’s tactics. So maybe they should be excluded.
On the other hand, they’re quite possibly the best prepared to come to an unbiased verdict, since they would theoretically know exactly what’s [legally] going on. So maybe they should be allowed.
The floor is yours.
Comments (3)
URL: http://
rebecca - that's probably the single best example i've heard so far, and i think they made the right move. amanda - i'm all about seeing though the shadiness. shade is a total no-no. and i agree with you for that exact reason. the lawyer could advise the jury in deliberation, assuming s/he was ethical and sought only to help them come to the right conclusion.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
i'd have to say that if a judge or lawyer was called upon and didn't know those involved in the case, i think they'd be a great addition to a jury. i'm all for seeing through the shadiness.
Posted by amanda | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://www.nerdygirl.com
The last time I had jury duty, about thirty of us were called up for a 12-person jury. They asked us all if anybody knew any of the participants, and this guy stood up to say he was a lawyer and had worked with the judge and I think he'd been in trials with one or the attorneys involved. They pretty much dismissed him on the spot.
Posted by rebecca | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15