How it actually works (based on serving in jury selection pools):

Lawyer: Are members of your profession stereotypically capable of independent critical thought?

Juror: Yes?

Lawyer: Dismissed.

(They just ask for professions and maybe educational background then infer the rest.)

Not my experience at all. And remember, what's good for the prosecutor, is bad for the defense, and vice versa.

And each side gets only a handful of dismissals. You waste it on some guy you think is "too smart" and you might not be able to use it on that guy who thinks your client is guilty already.

I think pretty trivially whats good for the prosecutor is not necessarily bad for the defense. i.e. if somebody says they're going to flip a coin to make their decision is going to be bad for both of them. (unless one side thinks they have absolutely no chance).

Not a lawyer but I think you have unlimited dismissals [1] its just there's a limit to the number of ones you don't have to provide a reason for. And I'm also sure the rules vary state by state.

[1]: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...

You’re right, when I say they get a certain number of dismissals, it’s “no questions asked”. But getting a judge to dismiss someone who you don’t feel is sympathetic to your client isn’t going to fly.

So the “no questions asked” dismissals tend to be people who may be sympathetic to either side.

If it’s a murder case the defense may want people who are pro-self defense while the prosecution may not.

Being pro or anti-self defense isn’t in itself a disqualified as long as you can follow jury instructions.

> (unless one side thinks they have absolutely no chance).

Wouldn't one side having a 49% chance be enough for them to prefer the coin flip?

Generally, the issue is that the person has specialized knowledge that one side or the other inevitably doesn't want on the jury.

Amusingly when I was in voir dir it was all about the lawyers in the pool getting excused.

Juror then gets a mistrial called and goes to jail for perjury.

"Your honor, I had a change of heart during the trial."

Not sure why downvoted. This is true.

Eh, not really.

Rule 606 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits a juror from testifying “about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.” [0]

Without testimony, how would you make the case for perjury? You can’t force the juror to incriminate themself, nor can you ask the other jurors to incriminate them. There’s no functional way to distinguish between nullification and a deliberated no vote.

[0] See page 25 (labelled as 12) https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Rules%20of%20Ev....

> Without testimony, how would you make the case for perjury?

You’re almost certainly going to be asked about your ability to make a decision on the basis of the law, and solely the law, during voir dire. If you say yes and then go on to nullify, you perjured yourself.

I agree that it’s (morally) perjury, but I don’t see how it could be proven in court. The prosecutor can’t compel the individual juror (5th Amendment) or the rest of the jury (Rules of Evidence) to testify. I suppose someone could voluntarily waive their 5A rights and confess but…

As a juror, you aren't required to explain your thought process.

"nullifying" means voting "not guilty". There's no evidence to prove that the juror did not just distrust all of the evidence presented, or feel that it didn't rise to the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

You'd make the case for perjury, because people who like jury nullification love to talk about it. Chances are they talked about it extensively online using poor opsec.

So long as the juror isn't a complete moron, it won't happen. To get to the point where a juror is convicted of perjury, you need one of the other jurors to turn them in to the judge. Something that can pretty much only happen at the end of the trial (since the jurors are barred from speaking to anyone about the case.)

Even that won’t work because jurors aren’t allowed to testify about their deliberations (with a few irrelevant exceptions).

How? You just keep it to yourself.

I guess it would have to become a widespread problem, for lawyers to start asking this (and to some extent it hints to the existence of jury nullification).

You are under oath during jury selection, right? So I guess that could hypothetically get you into some trouble. Although I'm sure it is pretty much unheard of for them to go after somebody who lied during jury selection questions...

Not necessarily a full prosecution, but it recently happened in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.

(Juror lied about his past sexual abuse. Nothing is really going to happen, but it probably caused him some sleepless nights)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-grants-immunity-maxwe...

More likely "Wait... oh yea, I would do that." and gets to go home and not serve jury duty.

I've served as a juror before and most people are just trying to find excuses get kicked out.