Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,610
- 910
A case involving two minority individuals not chosen for a jury in a sexual assault case because of their own run-ins with police officers forced the Connecticut Supreme Court to wrestle with difficult questions Friday.
Ruling their elimination unfair could lead to changes in how prosecutors exclude jurors who resent or distrust the U.S. justice system.
The underlying question is one that has plagued voir dire in countless forums: Is distrust in the criminal justice system an adequate reason to strike a juror?
In the case at hand, Jose A.B. is appealing his conviction on various sexual assault charges on the basis that prosecutors unconstitutionally struck two prospective jurors because of comments they made indicating skepticism about the court system.
What the hell? This is phenomenally stupid.
Ruling their elimination unfair could lead to changes in how prosecutors exclude jurors who resent or distrust the U.S. justice system.
The underlying question is one that has plagued voir dire in countless forums: Is distrust in the criminal justice system an adequate reason to strike a juror?
In the case at hand, Jose A.B. is appealing his conviction on various sexual assault charges on the basis that prosecutors unconstitutionally struck two prospective jurors because of comments they made indicating skepticism about the court system.
Top Connecticut Court Grapples With Juror-Exclusion Prerogatives
Judges appeared leery this morning about whether jury questionnaires singling out distrust of authority unfairly exclude minority voices.
www.courthousenews.com
What the hell? This is phenomenally stupid.