right to jury

What if the selection of an impartial jury is impossible?

@wildgrass said
What if the selection of an impartial jury is impossible?

Juries should be selected completely at random and you get what you get. Anything else is biased. This is also very quick.

Juries should also not ‘hang.’ If the main jury hangs, ask the alternates to vote. If they hang, the judge should decide.

@spruce112358 said
Juries should be selected completely at random and you get what you get. Anything else is biased. This is also very quick.

Juries should also not ‘hang.’ If the main jury hangs, ask the alternates to vote. If they hang, the judge should decide.

Like a military draft?

@spruce112358 said
Juries should be selected completely at random and you get what you get. Anything else is biased. This is also very quick.

Juries should also not ‘hang.’ If the main jury hangs, ask the alternates to vote. If they hang, the judge should decide.

Are you a gambler, Spruce? Whew. What if I am a biker covered in tattoos, and 12 little old gray haired ladies are on the jury? Or, what if I get lucky and get 12 free-wheeling bikers, people like the tattooed Shav, on the jury?
We would all know the verdict before the trial starts!!! LOL.

I do think that they should not require unanimous verdict. Something else, maybe, like you say with alternates.

Judge Decide? YOu saw the ugly faced cab driver judge who had it in for Trump. You could tell by his fox-eating grin that Trump did not have a chance. No, to judge decide. And being a white-collar, I would want my lawyer to poll jurors who understand things like, well...bank records. Imagine when unbelievable hordes of aliens will qualify when y'all take over in 2028.....they will decide my fate! Bank records? What are they?. I suggest you reconsider. Are you a gambler?

@averagejoe1 said
Are you a gambler, Spruce? Whew. What if I am a biker covered in tattoos, and 12 little old gray haired ladies are on the jury? Or, what if I get lucky and get 12 free-wheeling bikers, people like the tattooed Shav, on the jury?
We would all know the verdict before the trial starts!!! LOL.

I do think that they should not require unanimous verdict. Something ...[text shortened]... ll decide my fate! Bank records? What are they?. I suggest you reconsider. Are you a gambler?

Statisticians are rarely gamblers. But we do study bias. Bias represents unfairness. I don't like bias.

Yes, 12 little old ladies might convict while 12 fellow bikers might free. That's inconsistent. But if the jurors are chosen at random, it is unbiased, i.e. fair.

The OJ trial is a perfect example of introducing bias - one way or the other - by fiddling with venues, jurors, etc.

There is a concept of statistical 'shrinkage' in which you introduce a hopefully small bias (e.g. by always picking juries of middle-aged white Protestants) and so get very consistent results. But biased.

Shrinkage has its uses in estimation. But I don't think the justice system is the place for it.

@wildgrass said
What if the selection of an impartial jury is impossible?

If that's the case, the defendant would have to walk. A person cannot be convicted without a jury trial (unless he waives it) and if that can't be provided, then there can be no conviction.

@sh76 said
If that's the case, the defendant would have to walk. A person cannot be convicted without a jury trial (unless he waives it) and if that can't be provided, then there can be no conviction.

How can anyone who simply watches the news not be biased? Just the film clips of a president who has to be led around like a dog would cause be to biased about such a man sitting in the Oval. Or what if SHouse was on a jury in the Trump cases, he would not even bother with the evidence, he has seen enough. I impaneled a jury once, and in the voir dire, when asked about her thoughts, the woman looked at the defendant sitting there, and said.." I can tell by lookiing at him, he is Guilty!" She was let go.

@averagejoe1 said
How can anyone who simply watches the news not be biased? Just the film clips of a president who has to be led around like a dog would cause be to biased about such a man sitting in the Oval. Or what if SHouse was on a jury in the Trump cases, he would not even bother with the evidence, he has seen enough. I impaneled a jury once, and in the voir dire, when asked about ...[text shortened]... efendant sitting there, and said.." I can tell by lookiing at him, he is Guilty!" She was let go.

No you didn’t Joe stop lying
But what that imaginary woman said proves the jury selection process works, I’m assuming the imaginary prosecution had the imaginary juror dismissed.
There is nothing intrinsically toxic about bias as long as you are aware of it and how it can cloud your judgement

@averagejoe1 said
Are you a gambler, Spruce? Whew. What if I am a biker covered in tattoos, and 12 little old gray haired ladies are on the jury? Or, what if I get lucky and get 12 free-wheeling bikers, people like the tattooed Shav, on the jury?
We would all know the verdict before the trial starts!!! LOL.

I do think that they should not require unanimous verdict. Something ...[text shortened]... ll decide my fate! Bank records? What are they?. I suggest you reconsider. Are you a gambler?

You think I have tattoos?

You really, really have no idea, do you?

@kevcvs57 said
No you didn’t Joe stop lying
But what that imaginary woman said proves the jury selection process works, I’m assuming the imaginary prosecution had the imaginary juror dismissed.
There is nothing intrinsically toxic about bias as long as you are aware of it and how it can cloud your judgement

No, what. is proved is that the woman was biased against someone without hearing a shred of evidence. Sonhouse is our best example.

@averagejoe1 said
How can anyone who simply watches the news not be biased? Just the film clips of a president who has to be led around like a dog would cause be to biased about such a man sitting in the Oval. Or what if SHouse was on a jury in the Trump cases, he would not even bother with the evidence, he has seen enough. I impaneled a jury once, and in the voir dire, when asked about ...[text shortened]... efendant sitting there, and said.." I can tell by lookiing at him, he is Guilty!" She was let go.

That's an excellent question and one that can't be easily answered. The judge would have to keep trying until they found people who can be fair. That doesn't mean the jurors have to have no political opinions or not have heard of Trump, but they'd have to satisfy the judge that they can be impartial.

The person you dealt with is their not jury material or possible was trying to get out of jury duty.

@shavixmir said
You think I have tattoos?

You really, really have no idea, do you?

Well, yes, I 'have an idea' that you do. But, not worth a discussion. I also think you have funny hair. Tell me I am half right ?? Naaa, no need. 😉

@sh76 said
That's an excellent question and one that can't be easily answered. The judge would have to keep trying until they found people who can be fair. That doesn't mean the jurors have to have no political opinions or not have heard of Trump, but they'd have to satisfy the judge that they can be impartial.

The person you dealt with is their not jury material or possible was trying to get out of jury duty.

I love the idea of impartial juries, but I get very nervous promising people 'a right' that the government can't ultimately protect.

What the government CAN deliver - with a 100% guarantee - is an unbiased jury. That can be done. We have lists, we can choose randomly. We can compel people to show up.

We can be unbiased.

But impartial, as in 'having no prejudices and rendering decisions solely based on evidence'? That relies on jurors telling us the truth; or on other people investigating those jurors and making accurate assessments about their predilections and abilities.

That's a lot harder, and I would hate to say we can guarantee that protection.

@spruce112358 said
I love the idea of impartial juries, but I get very nervous promising people 'a right' that the government can't ultimately protect.

What the government CAN deliver - with a 100% guarantee - is an unbiased jury. That can be done. We have lists, we can choose randomly. We can compel people to show up.

We can be unbiased.

But impartial, as in 'having no prejudices ...[text shortened]... ons and abilities.

That's a lot harder, and I would hate to say we can guarantee that protection.

……relies on potential jurors telling the truth. therein lies the rub. A great example are the lies that Suzanne points out our telling all the time.

@wildgrass said
What if the selection of an impartial jury is impossible?

Thought experiment: Someone does an adequate and well-controlled study and finds that - of all the traits American people have - being a woodworker (for some reason; just imagine) is the most predictive of being impartial.

Should we from then on seat juries entirely composed of woodworkers? Or banjo-players? Or bartenders - whatever group is the 'most impartial' in our society?