Once upon a time, not so very long ago in fact, in the state in which I
live, it was forbidden by statute for an attorney to serve as a juror in a
case.
A rationale that was often given for not allowing attorneys on juries
was that
by forcing an attorney to serve on a jury, the Court may be preventing
someone from freely choosing an attorney of his or her own choice. Thus,
if
you were, say, a divorce attorney, and Dick wanted to divorce his wife
Jane (or
the other way around), you would be unavailable for the duration
of the trial
on which you sat as a juror to represent Dick or Jane, even
though one of them
really, really wanted you to represent him or her.
For some reason,
in my state, they decided that wasn't a good enough
reason to allow attorneys
to "shirk" jury duty, and the law prohibiting
attorneys from serving on a jury
was repealed recently. Now an attorney
can be forced to serve on a jury
(notwithstanding the problems this may
cause for his ongoing clients) just like
anyone else.
I always thought that the problems an attorney might have
rescheduling
court dates and other deadlines and the possibility of conflicts
of interest
were better reasons for not allowing attorneys to be called for
jury duty.
But you seem to have discovered another reason, albeit one that
could be
discovered at voir dire, where the jurors are questioned and
released by one side or the other (or not) either for cause or in a
preemptory
challenge.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that being an attorney by
itself would
necessarily cause either party to dismiss you for cause, and the
sides can
eventually run out of preemptory challenges. Also, one of the sides
might
actually like the idea of having an attorney in the jury room.
For
example, a plaintiff's lawyer might want to have a friend from another
plaintiff's law firm in the jury room.
All in all, I think my state had it
right when they didn't allow attorneys on
juries, and I think they ought to
reenact that law.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
