Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: [internetworkers] Jurors [was: legal outrage...]

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>
  • To: "'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Jurors [was: legal outrage...]
  • Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:52:59 -0400

Jim Allman wrote:

> On Jul 6, 2004, at 9:47 AM, Shea Tisdale wrote:
> > For at least 4 of the people on
> > that jury, that meant making a decision that would find their employer
> > guilty. And in 2 cases, that entity was the major client of a business
> > owned or operated by the juror. So even with some concern for
> > potential
> > reprisal, they made the decision they felt was appropriate given the
> > facts
> > of the case.
>
> Interest. I don't know much about the jury selection process, but I
> would've guessed these people would be ineligible due to conflicts of
> interest.

Jury selection is regulated by law. Anyone who is called to sit on a jury
is asked a series of questions to determine if they know anything about the
case before they might here. If they do, then they are usually excluded
from that particular case.

Then potential jury members are asked a series of questions to determine if
they can be fair and impartial in hearing the type of case they might here.
And to determine if they have any expertise in any area a case might touch
upon - such as psychology or forensics. Based on those answers a potential
jurist can be excluded for cause. I think (TaB, what is the right
answer???) that there is no limit to number of people that may be excluded
for cause.

Both the prosecution and defense also have a certain number of peremptory
challenges they can use to remove a potential juror without a reason. Read
into that what you will, but basically it lets them get rid of someone they
have a feeling about.

In the case I heard, neither side objected to the employees or contractors
sitting on the jury. I think the defense probably felt it might help them,
and the complainant probably felt that based on the answers they provided
they would be fair and impartial. I should also point out that at least one
person that was called was removed for cause as he indicated he would be
afraid of damaging his relationship with the organization. He was honest
about it and said he felt it might color his judgment and the complainant's
lawyer asked that he be removed for cause. The judge asked him the
questions again and several more, and upon hearing the answers the judge
agreed to remove him and sent that individual back to the jury pool to serve
on another jury.

shea









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page