You cannot exclude someone for reasons beyond their control - ethinicity, race, etc, that's basic common sense. And to clarify, this defendent was not referring to religion, which you can choose. She wanted to screen out anyone of Jewish ethnicity by DNA test - meaning whether they practiced or not, if they were Jewish by genetics, she wanted them out.
In this case, it's pretty cut and dried that she would've been found guilty no matter who was on the jury.
What about a more abstract - if attorneys attempt to screen out members of hate groups from jury pools whenever they can, should the same apply in reverse - screening out the targets of hate groups when a member is on trial, or is that merely yet another consequence of their right to free speech? Ignoring however personally distasteful that might be - isn't it grounds for appeal?
Answer by 3libras at 5:00 PM on Mar. 12, 2013
Answer by LostSoul88 at 5:01 PM on Mar. 12, 2013
Answer by Dardenella at 5:02 PM on Mar. 12, 2013
Answer by Ballad at 5:20 PM on Mar. 12, 2013
Answer by wendythewriter at 6:00 PM on Mar. 12, 2013
Answer by wendythewriter at 7:04 PM on Mar. 12, 2013
Answer by Dardenella at 12:15 AM on Mar. 13, 2013
Yes I have faith in people but again they are only allowed to dismiss a few individuals. It seems to me it is 6 each but I am probably wrong about that. I have faith in people, but I am not naive. I know that people will often do what suits their own ends. I know a lot who will do anything to get out of jury duty. It is sad but true. Still for all the remaining jurors to be of a certain leaning would be long odds.
Answer by Dardenella at 1:00 AM on Mar. 13, 2013
Most Liked Posts