|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
That is the sensible way to pick a jury. It can in never be the American way.
;-)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
This is actually pretty close to what happens in the US.
They first do a check on hardship exceptions (and these can be pretty narrow,
the fact that you run your own business and your business will be shut down for
the duration of the trial was not enough to get people excused for hardship
during one 3-week trial I was on the Jury for. One of the parties decided that
they didn't want someone one the Jury who really didn't want to be there and
kicked him off, but the Judge didn't give him a hardship exemption)
They then call up the first 18 people, then they go through everyone to find out
if there are any direct conflicts.
If they are suing a hospital and you have an employee who works at the hospital,
that person should probably not be on the Jury
I was on the Jury for one case where one of the possible jurors turned out to be
a friend of the defendant
They don't eliminate people just because they are technical. They eliminate
people because they have a conflict of interest or give the judge reason to
believe that they are not going to give both sides a chance.
After such direct conflicts and biases are eliminated, then the two parties get
a chance to eliminate a couple people. They don't track prior eliminations
(frankly, trying to track that would be a nightmare), but this is pretty close
to what you are looking for.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
