When the lawyers went around the room asking questions, one of the questions was something along the lines of “will you uphold the law as the judge describes it”. 40 odd people leading up to me all said yes, and then I said “maybe”.
I was asked to step outside to discuss my answer. I pretty much said “I know my rights as a juror and if a law is unjust it’s my duty to say so”. They said I could go home after that.
But you're in a very difficult position morally when asked that question (assuming it's for the purpose of removing anyone who will engage in jury nullification). If you actually believe in jury nullification then morally you have to lie right? Otherwise you're allowing someone to override what you consider to be an important civil right. It's no different to someone standing outside a polling booth and refusing entry unless you promised to vote for his candidate: if you actually believe in democracy you need to lie...
To be clear, I am not absolutely convinced by the whole Jury Nullification thing. Obviously it's practically possible but I am not convinced it is a good thing, let alone a civil right or a check on power etc. I am a limey brit and over here we don't "pick" or "disqualify" jurors for better or worse. So aside from knowing people involved in the case, you don't get asked questions like this...
I don't care if he was guilty of Perjury - his "crime" only hurt Hillary...
Instead ,I was on a DUI that resulted in a crash with some extra circumstances. The defense was entirely presented at closing and amounted to the claim that the defendant stopped his car right before the crash, let a hitchhiker take the wheel, the hitchhiker caused the crash, moved the defendant into the driver's seat and belted him in there so that the fire department arrived and photographed the defendant there, and then ran off.
Even if the crazy hitchhiker story were true then the defendant was still admitting to DUI, and, in my mind, being responsible for the crash. It was basically a huge waste of time since all jurors instantly voted to convict.
I don't know, but I was selected for a jury once. That said, I did not make any particular effort to get out of serving. I answered the voir dire questions honestly, but didn't go out of my way to volunteer something just because I thought it might get me out of jury duty. For example, I didn't say "I'm a radical Libertarian who considers the State invalid in principle and strongly supports jury nullification." Had I been asked "are you a radical Libertarian who ..." I would have answered "yes", but it never came up. So I tried to be honest and neutral, and in the end they picked me.
The moral of this story? I'm not sure. I will say this though: I learned a lot from the experience. Hopefully I'm never on trial for anything, but if I ever am, I believe my jury experience might actually be helpful to me.
I laughed out loud at this.
I was on a jury trial when a spouse of a prosecutor office employee was allowed on. People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool.
In general, they don’t like technical people on technical cases. My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked.
Wouldn't that unduly bias the jury selection? In effect the employer is being allowed to buy extra representation.
Usually, there's a limited number each side can dismiss without cause. To dismiss more than that, they have to convince the judge that the juror will not honestly decide the case according to the evidence and the law.
If I’m an expert in cellular towers, you don’t want me contradicting the expert on cellular towers testimony on the basis of the magic knowledge that I claim to have.
If you say in voir dire that you wouldn't vote to convict even if the person is guilty, you're not going to get put on a jury.
When I observed jury selection I saw several people back down from stances that were clearly attempts to get kicked off the jury.
It's not like the lawyers ask one question then dismiss you.
I did see one guy who claimed he believed "all courts are invalid" hold up to some pretty intense questioning before getting dismissed. But by the grin on his face I could tell he relished winning that one.
The reasons that seemed to get a quick dismissal were people who had been victims of crime in the past, people who had family members who were police officers, lawyers, judges. People who held not uncommon beliefs that would bias them (e.g. "I believe that people of color can't get a fair trial"), but not always if the juror said they could make a decision without that bias clouding their judgement.
The ones that picked extreme beliefs just got more questioning until they either admitted their belief wouldn't cloud their judge or that their belief wasn't so extreme as to bias them.
I mean, the judge and lawyers question people for a living, so they know exactly how to drill down and force an answer out.
No one, not the judge, the prosecutors or the defense want jury selection to take a long time and there are only so many people in the pool to choose from.
That said, on a different trial, a serial killer, it took almost 6 weeks to panel a jury. I was there for a week before being dismissed because I’m morally against the death penalty. Even then the judge interviewed me for 30 minutes on this point, including about my religious upbringing as a child.
It's not illegal in any way. It won't get you thrown in jail for contempt. It is probably protected by the first ammendment to say so. It will get you excluded from the jury.
People do it all the time, in fact.
The exact standard questions asked of jurors in voir dire vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually include some variation of if there any religious, philosophical, or ethical reasons you could not convict (or not acquit) generally.
I mean, imagine if you had philosophical, ethical, or reliigous reasons you couldn't convict under any circumstances and you wound up on the jury anyway! If you didn't tell the court this when asked and wound up on the jury cause you lied about it... you probably still wouldn't actually be considered in contempt, but it'd be bad.
He was serious, btw.
Just saying you don’t trust police isn’t enough.
You are more likely to get kicked off for a specific profession than a stated belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
Indictment alone is serious business. It is enough to ruin someone's life, and is not to be taken lightly. So when a grand jury is only given police testimony as evidence, that indicates a shortcoming in the system.
I served on a jury. Can’t imagine why any given HN user wouldn’t be allowed…
They all say no matter how many test juries (their clients sometimes actually pay for them to try out arguments on a group of people), or how much jury study they do…. it is hard to predict how a juror will act / be influenced based on demographics.
My limited experience was similar, folks were not super predictable.
I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?