Arizona ends peremptory jury challenges

[Polishprince]

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

Most people are happy to be excused from a jury actually. I wouldn't mind going for most cases, but I sure the hell wouldn't want to sit it judgment of a police officer or a black youth-one of America's Sacred Cows.

Lib pressure to force a guilty verdict, threatening to burn down your house if you say "innocent" would be disturbing to me. I would just feel bad to vote "guilty" even if I knew the cop who killed the black guy was as innocent as a newborn babe.

 

[DrLove]

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

A jury takes an oath (or at least they did in CA, OR and ID) to answer questions truthfully. Many times, cases have been tossed when jurors were not honest about their backgrounds and/or opinions.

 

[DrLove]

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...

There may have been other reasons why your best friend was dismissed. I doubt if R Kelly or his attorney had any deep seated hatred for classic rock.

What - they were picking only jurors who liked hip-hop? That's goofy.

 

[Canon Shooter]

There may have been other reasons why your best friend was dismissed. I doubt if R Kelly or his attorney had any deep seated hatred for classic rock.

What - they were picking only jurors who liked hip-hop? That's goofy.

I agree, it would.

The suggestion wasn't that Kelly or his attorney hated classic rock, but that they believe someone who likes classic rock wouldn't give Kelly a fair shake...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Attorneys will just have to be creative in their questioning.

 

[Grumblenuts]

From my experience it could easily be left up to the judge to question and dismiss potential jurors based on bias. I'd prefer it that way since judges tend to be less slimy than lawyers. They generally just want to ensure a fair hearing from both sides and an informed, impartial decision from the jury. The lawyers just want to win so try to pack juries in their favor.

 

[Flash]

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

If you are a Negro are you going to tell the judge that you hate White people?

 

[struth]

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

of course not, but a lot of people with bias don’t even know it, the question is still relevant to bring it to the attention of the jurors

 

[lg325]

Most people are happy to be excused from a jury actually. I wouldn't mind going for most cases, but I sure the hell wouldn't want to sit it judgment of a police officer or a black youth-one of America's Sacred Cows.

Lib pressure to force a guilty verdict, threatening to burn down your house if you say "innocent" would be disturbing to me. I would just feel bad to vote "guilty" even if I knew the cop who killed the black guy was as innocent as a newborn babe.

I have been on a few juries with black defendants. One was found innocent one guilty and one was guilty of some charges but not the main charge. The Guilty one was being tried for murder, took three years but he was found innocent. My observation has been once people no matter who they are always want to do the right thing once being chosen as jurors. I removed myself from one jury because the two white guys charged had committed the crime 20 years before and I knew the man they killed. I had no idea until it started.

 

[DrLove]

I agree, it would.

The suggestion wasn't that Kelly or his attorney hated classic rock, but that they believe someone who likes classic rock wouldn't give Kelly a fair shake...

That's goofy. So if she'd said she liked classical music, that would have been reason for dismissal?

I'll bet it was something else. Remember, they don't need cause for dismissal. Maybe there were other candidates who presented themselves better?

 

[pknopp]

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...

Because of course liking classic rock would stop you from making a decision based upon the law........

 

[pknopp]

Most people are happy to be excused from a jury actually. I wouldn't mind going for most cases, but I sure the hell wouldn't want to sit it judgment of a police officer or a black youth-one of America's Sacred Cows.

Lib pressure to force a guilty verdict, threatening to burn down your house if you say "innocent" would be disturbing to me. I would just feel bad to vote "guilty" even if I knew the cop who killed the black guy was as innocent as a newborn babe.

Then you should speak up and say so.

 

[g5000]

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

Excusing someone because they are related to someone involved is a legitimate reason to dismiss for bias. And that kind of dismissal is still allowed. Only peremptory challenges are banned.

 

[g5000]

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.

A bias challenge is still allowed.

 

[g5000]

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

Exactly.

 

[g5000]

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?

They still can exclude you for that kind of bias.

A peremptory challenge is one where no reason is given for dismissing the potential juror. A lawyer can dismiss a juror just because they don't like his face, and they don't have to say that.

 

[g5000]

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

I think it depends on the nature of the case. I am imagining a black defendant accused of a gun homicide and a potential redneck juror who says, "I LOVE guns! Can't get enough of 'em! MAGA, baby! YEEEEE-HAWWWW!"

It would be my guess that guy would be heavily biased against the black guy even though they share a mutual love of guns.

 

[Flash]

A bias challenge is still allowed.

Only if it meets certain criteria.

There could be other kinds of bias that a seasoned prosecutor or defense attorney recognizes that may not meet a legal definition but is still present.

Again, it could work both ways.

 

[struth]

They still can exclude you for that kind of bias.

A peremptory challenge is one where no reason is given for dismissing the potential juror. A lawyer can dismiss a juror just because they don't like his face, and they don't have to say that.

well they can’t strike someone simply because of their race, or gender…but other then that yeah

 

[g5000]

well they can’t strike someone simply because of their race, or gender…but other then that yeah

This is kind of ironic. To exclude someone for being black or female or whatever is bias on the part of the lawyer. It assumes all people of a particular demographic think the same way.