Arizona ends peremptory jury challenges

[struth]

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.

it’s happened…Batson v Kentucky.

Lawyers who think the opposing counsel is doing so can do what is called a Batson Challenge.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

That might not get you excluded. People have been known to express these kinds of biases to get out of jury duty. Thr judge might fine the juror or put them in lock up for a couple of hours. Better to say "all black people are liars. Non Christians all worship Satan and should be punished". Now you have bias that will get you kicked off a jury.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

Hey, for whatever reason, they let her go...

 

[AZrailwhale]

Attorneys will just have to be creative in their questioning.

That's got nothing to do with preemptory challenges. A preemptory challenge is one without a stated cause. In CA each side got a few preemptory challenges and unlimited challenges for cause. The only time I was interviewed for a jury here in Arizona, things never got that far because the defense lawyer got sick and had to leave court so we were excused to go home since we had been picked for a panel. So I don't know what the rule is here.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That might not get you excluded. People have been known to express these kinds of biases to get out of jury duty. Thr judge might fine the juror or put them in lock up for a couple of hours. Better to say "all black people are liars. Non Christians all worship Satan and should be punished". Now you have bias that will get you kicked off a jury.

I had a friend who used to get out of jury duty by saying "the cops wouldn't have arrested the defendant unless he was guilty". Wham bam, thank you mam, instant excusal. My wife honestly says she has religious reservations against judging anyone else since she is fallible and imperfect. She has never had to serve. I always serve when called and try my best to be impartial and judge based ONLY on the facts presented in court. It's often hard because I tend to know a little about a lot and can see things that are deliberately left out of testimony by both sides. It's really hard to set aside knowledge and rule on partial facts.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I had a friend who used to get out of jury duty by saying "the cops wouldn't have arrested the defendant unless he was guilty". Wham bam, thank you mam, instant excusal. My wife honestly says she has religious reservations against judging anyone else since she is fallible and imperfect. She has never had to serve. I always serve when called and try my best to be impartial and judge based ONLY on the facts presented in court. It's often hard because I tend to know a little about a lot and can see things that are deliberately left out of testimony by both sides. It's really hard to set aside knowledge and rule on partial facts.

I have selected hundreds of juries. I have never served on one. I know what to say. I still don't like even showing up to get dismissed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

Or they show bias.

 

[iceberg]

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.

But if you hate guns and protest them, it could bias your views.