|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
the problem is how you define 'for cause'
'for cause' can be that the judge and lawyers just don't believe that person's
statement that they will be fair to both parties.
The current system allows for an unlimited number of jurors to be dismissed if
the Judge wants to do so. If both sets of lawyers want to dismiss someone, it's
uncommon for the Judge to not do so.
It's after you eliminate all the people that the Judge and both sets of lawyers
want to boot off that things get difficult.
If one side thinks that a person is biased, and the other side doesn't (or says
they don't because they think the person is biased in their favor), or they
think the person is going to be unwilling to ignore their outside 'knowledge'
and only us the facts and laws as presented in the courtroom, how do you decide
if you should boot the person off or not?
you don't want to have an unlimited number of boots, especially for reasons that
are 'soft' like this.
so the compromise is that after everyone what either both sides or the Judge
want to boot off is gone, each side gets a fixed number of extra boots to deal
with these 'soft' issues. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
