Arizona ends peremptory jury challenges

[pknopp]

This is great and somethin that I hope expands. I have only been on jury duty one time around 30 years ago but I recall getting questioned by both sides. They asked my opinion on this or that. Now I understand excusing someone because you are related to someone involved or work with or similar but my opinions on something are irrelevant.

I've said I would tell them "your questions are irrelevant, I will rule based upon the law and evidence". If they don't want to place me on the jury, whatever. At least in Arizona people will no longer have to deal with this.

Arizona Supreme Court will be first state to end peremptory challenges to potential jurors

 

[Flash]

This could be a two edge sword.

Both defense and prosecution need to weed out bias. This law takes a tool away from both of them.

Not cool.

 

[pknopp]

This could be a two edge sword.

Both defense and prosecution need to weed out bias. This law takes a tool away from both of them.

Not cool.

I was questioned on a murder trial. I was asked what my opinions were on guns. It's irrelevant. The person either killed the other person or not.

 

[struth]

This is great and somethin that I hope expands. I have only been on jury duty one time around 30 years ago but I recall getting questioned by both sides. They asked my opinion on this or that. Now I understand excusing someone because you are related to someone involved or work with or similar but my opinions on something are irrelevant.

I've said I would tell them "your questions are irrelevant, I will rule based upon the law and evidence". If they don't want to place me on the jury, whatever. At least in Arizona people will no longer have to deal with this.

Arizona Supreme Court will be first state to end peremptory challenges to potential jurors

this doesn’t end voir dire. You can still question people and strike them for cause.

 

[struth]

I was questioned on a murder trial. I was asked what my opinions were on guns. It's irrelevant. The person either killed the other person or not.

was the murder with a gun? if so it’s certainly relevant question.

 

[pknopp]

this doesn’t end voir dire. You can still question people and strike them for cause.

As I noted........because they are related, etc.

 

[struth]

This could be a two edge sword.

Both defense and prosecution need to weed out bias. This law takes a tool away from both of them.

Not cool.

agreed

 

[pknopp]

was the murder with a gun? if so it’s certainly relevant question.

I believe it was and it's irrelevant. He either did it or not.

 

[rightwinger]

Some jurors are just plain assholes and make it clear when questioned.
If you state you openly hate blacks or non-Christians, Don’t you think they should exclude you?

 

[struth]

As I noted........because they are related, etc.

all sorts of other bias exist besides if someone is related

voir dire is arguably the most important part of a trial

these sort of strikes are also important, because someone might not have a noticeable bias and qualify for being struck for cause but maybe they just don’t look engaged in the case and should be struck

 

[struth]

I believe it was and it's irrelevant. He either did it or not.

hahaa of course it’s relevant

maybe not to you, but if someone already has a. bias against guns or for that matter is a gun nut might be relevant to the attorneys

You don’t get to decide what’s relevant to the case, in fact as a juror, during voir dire you should have no clue what’s relevant at that point

 

[pknopp]

Some jurors are just plain assholes and make it clear when questioned.
If you state you openly hate blacks or non-Christians, Don’t you think they should exclude you?

Sure if you blurt it out.

 

[pknopp]

hahaa of course it’s relevant

maybe not to you, but if someone already has a. bias against guns or for that matter is a gun nut might be relevant to the attorneys

You don’t get to decide what’s relevant to the case, in fact as a juror, during voir dire you should have no clue what’s relevant at that point

People in Arizona no longer have to deal with it. If called I won't answer either.

 

[DrLove]

This is great and somethin that I hope expands. I have only been on jury duty one time around 30 years ago but I recall getting questioned by both sides. They asked my opinion on this or that. Now I understand excusing someone because you are related to someone involved or work with or similar but my opinions on something are irrelevant.

I've said I would tell them "your questions are irrelevant, I will rule based upon the law and evidence". If they don't want to place me on the jury, whatever. At least in Arizona people will no longer have to deal with this.

Arizona Supreme Court will be first state to end peremptory challenges to potential jurors

If you were a black defendant and a juror said they were a member of Proud Boys and a Neo-Nazi sympathizer, would that juror's opinion be relevant in jury selection? I would say it is.

I've served on three juries and have never been asked a question that treaded into the racial or political realm. I was once asked I was asked if I was a gun owner. I said yes and it was a case involving a gun crime. Did it make me sympathetic to the defendant? No - They chose me anyway and along with 11 others, we convicted.

This looks more like Arizona Republicans sucking up to the base.

 

[DrLove]

This could be a two edge sword.

Both defense and prosecution need to weed out bias. This law takes a tool away from both of them.

Not cool.

First time I've ever agreed with you. Who are you and what did you do with our Flash?

 

[pknopp]

If you were a black defendant and a juror said they were a member of Proud Boys and a Neo-Nazi sympathizer, would that juror's opinion be relevant in jury selection? I would say it is.

I've served on three juries and have never been asked a question that treaded into the racial or political realm. I was once asked I was asked if I was a gun owner. I said yes and it was a case involving a gun crime. Did it make me sympathetic to the defendant? No - They chose me anyway and along with 11 others, we convicted.

This looks more like Arizona Republicans sucking up to the base.

If you blurt it out you simply don't want to be on the jury. Most racists have zero interest in owning up to it.

 

[DrLove]

If you blurt it out you simply don't want to be on the jury. Most racists have zero interest in owning up to it.

So in this case, isn't attorney for the black defendant entitled to ask me about my social media behavior and whether I had ever sympathized with racist opinions?

 

[pknopp]

So in this case, isn't attorney for the black defendant entitled to ask me about my social media behavior and whether I had ever sympathized with racist opinions?

Not in my opinion. If you are a racist are you going to own up to it?

 

[struth]

People in Arizona no longer have to deal with it. If called I won't answer either.

i am not sure how the link in your OP makes you draw that conclusion.

if you don’t answer, you can be held in contempt

 

[Canon Shooter]

My best friend recently had to report for jury duty in Brooklyn. She couldn't tell me who the case involved, only to say that it was a case which had received much publicity. She said if she didn't get selected she could tell me who it was.

She made it through the initial stages of jury selection, all the way up until she was being interviewed by the attorneys and the judge. The defense attorney asked her what kind of music she liked. She answered that she preferred classic rock. Being a 59 year old white woman, this really didn't surprise anyone, including the defendant. The defense attorney dismissed her.

The defendant was R. Kelly...