What a world. You can choose to be something like a xtian, and few bat an eye, but if you are LGBTQ+, apparently, that could make you unable to be on the jury?
Do US juries need a reason to kick people off? Isn’t it like both sides in a case get to throw off a set amount of people?
To me, the whole article seems like the US justice system coming apart at the seams because of it having two publics with two sets of norms.
Pretty much. Both sides go back and forth.
If you never been in jury duty, both sides look at the selected jurors (sometimes 20-40 ppl) and their goal is to shave it to a smaller number, like 12.
Wear gauges? Have purple hair? Be a person of color?
If you don’t fit a specific profile to help them win… You’re gone.
During one of the selected cases where I was part of being selected, they absolutely asked you questions about your job and family, to get a sense of your background.
Interesting. So if you wanna get kicked out just wear a Mohawk and fake ear piercings to make it clear you’re punk.
[redacted]
So, technically, the USA has what is called “Protected Classes” such as race, ethnicity, and disability who, for the reason of being who they are, cannot be excluded or disadvantaged as a result of.
In most of the USA, sexual orientation or other identities are not in any way protected.
Except for like a buttload of nuances and small changes and court decisions over the course of a century or two.
The point op is making though is that in court a attorny can strike people with minimal reason. Which includes all those protected classes. They have a limited amount of those strikes but they can do whatever they want with them.
For instance, if the person on trial is part of “religion A” and that religion is known to stick together with a cult like fervor an attorney could strike strike a juror of religion A for “cause”.
So, because I was reminded of Alito’s take, I got curious and was pleasantly surprised by Wikipedia’s entry about religions that are lgbtq friendly.
You can be kicked off for any reason.
You cannot be kicked off for any reason. Class and race are invalid grounds for removal, but you can be removed for no reason.
As a person on a jury, I was kicked off as the only person of color. No questions went my way. I just sat there and 3 hours later, I wasn’t part of it.
We all can make assumptions that maybe because I match the skin tone of the defendant, and all three police officers were white, and it was post-BLM. But they absolutely won’t say that. And why would they?
There are more protected classes than economic status and race at the federal level and some states have expanded classes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group?wprov=sfti1#United_States
You cannot be removed from a jury ‘for no reason’. A judge may remove you from a jury if they believe a juror has bias or contact toward or with either the defendant. Or if the judge believes you are unwilling or incapable of following the law.
You can however be not selected for a jury via two means, a challenge for cause or a peremptory challenge. A challenge for cause is when the lawyer believes you have a genuine prejudice or bias against the defendant. A peremptory challenge is where lawyers can basically ask a judge to remove any juror from the selection pool, they only get a set number of these and they can’t violate the protected classes mentioned earlier, but they can be muuuuuch more loosely applied during proceedings.
IANAL I just spent a few min researching and watched that one cgp video about jury nullification a while back. And voir dire is fun to say.
Or if the judge believes you are unwilling or incapable of following the law.
I remember being asked questions during the jury screening process, and I found it curious that the language the judge was using about “following the law” seemed to exclude jury nullification. I don’t know if that’s a stock bit of language or something particular to that judge, but it did bother me in the moment and for some time after.
Though - it turns out for the case in question, I don’t think the relevant laws would be something too many would question - AFAIK, the defendant was accused of assaulting a police officer. I don’t think there were things like drug charges. Most people would agree that law(s) against assaulting anyone are just laws. Some laws like drug “laws” have been, and are, highly controversial, however, and I wonder if that judge gives the same spiel to everyone.
In any case, I did not make the cut for whatever reason. But I’m annoyed by the notion that people may be sitting on juries thinking they have to hand down a guilty verdict for laws they don’t even think are just, because “it’s a law”. This was before Amendment 64 passed here in Colorado, by the way.
That’s exactly the reason for those questions. So they can ask ‘would you consider using jury nullification’ without informing people that jury nullification exists.
And also so that if you at some point admit something that sounds like you’re voting not guilty because you disagree with the law, they can kick you off the jury and possibly charge you with perjury.
If you ever find yourself in a jury and intend to nullify, you must not admit it ever: you must maintain simply that you are not convinced by the evidence.
I should stress that IANAL, but the notion that they are trying to prevent jury nullification is what I think really sticks in my craw. Most especially when it comes to all the nonsense around drug policy in this country. Even with Amendment 64 passed in Colorado, and other states following suit, we have a long, long way to go to roll back the Nixon-level bullshit. And jury nullification is often the only tool available to citizens to at least do something about it when they are faced with that choice. And people like this judge are even trying to take that little bit of power away from us.
It’s kind of a difficult issue. Jury nullification has been used for both good and bad, with the simplest and most obvious examples being from Civil War type stuff - people who unambiguously broke the law against helping slaves escape have had their verdicts nullified. Good thing. But also people who lynched black people in the south have had their verdicts nullified. Bad thing.
Making sure that verdicts are determined purely based on the law and whether the law was broken means that people need to work to change the law, they can’t just apply the law unevenly by nullifying against some defendants and not against others. So I can see the case for nullification being a bad thing. Ideally, you deal with that by removing or reworking the law so that it doesn’t come to the point of needing nullification.
But, well, reality isn’t ideal. Still, it’s unavoidable - as long as a jury can’t be forced to explain the reasoning behind their verdict beyond insisting ‘I was not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt’ and as long as a jury verdict of Not Guilty is final and cannot be retried, jury nullification will de facto exist. That said, it’s the entire system not just ‘this judge’ that is attempting to prevent jury nullification from happening. The judge’s question about following the law is boilerplate standard basically everywhere, and it’s a systematic and intentional attempt to weed out potential jury nullifiers.
Technically true, but if you can be kicked for no reason, you can be kicked for any reason.
Yes, though the other side is allowed to challenge your reasons if there’s a theme in your eliminations and each side can only do it so many times. You also can’t ask too much personal information, though that varies based on the case.
Lololol so is she going to change how juries work or is she going to try and cut out a very narrow exception that’s inherently unfair?
Edit: ahh this is in the state house, won’t ever pass, and is just a dog and pony show for team D.
What are you even talking about?
State house? Did you click on the right article? This is in the US House of Representatives.
