| 2) Jury of one's peers:
"a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which
"peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the
available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of
race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which
excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of
possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by
Asians, or African Americans by African Americans."
Does it only apply
to criminal cases? Is "peer means equal" ambiguous and open to endless
interpretation?
Who should sit on murder trails? Criminal class, or
those charged but found innocent, or those found guilty? Obviously those choices
are unreasonable, but how farfetched if peer means equal?
3) to get
random (unbiased?) jurors you would have to question and be able to strike
potential jurors from inclusion.
Not sure how or why counsel for the defense
let the juror with patents be seated. Given quotes this juror has given in
interviews, seems this may have been a terrible mistake.
Is that an
issue for appeal? Seems unlikely.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
