Comments on: The problem with voir dire http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/ Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:53:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Legal fictions: collateral consequences edition | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-37790 Legal fictions: collateral consequences edition | a public defender Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:47:30 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-37790 [...] in the day, I posted about two different legal fictions: rehabilitation during voir dire and the difference between the standard of proof in trials and VOP hearings. Here’s another [...] [...] in the day, I posted about two different legal fictions: rehabilitation during voir dire and the difference between the standard of proof in trials and VOP hearings. Here’s another [...]

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-31535 SPO Fri, 16 May 2008 17:52:31 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-31535 And you guys have the opportunity to observe his demeanor. I would bet that in this case, which is pretty slam dunk, the probklem of a "he did it" juror is attenuated, and you'd rather have a person who will be officious--kind of like the juror in Uttecht v. Brown. And you guys have the opportunity to observe his demeanor. I would bet that in this case, which is pretty slam dunk, the probklem of a “he did it” juror is attenuated, and you’d rather have a person who will be officious–kind of like the juror in Uttecht v. Brown.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-31500 Gideon Fri, 16 May 2008 12:39:30 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-31500 See, that seems to make more sense. The problem with questions like "But can you follow the law as the judge explains it to you?" and "Will you be able to put aside any preconceived notions and apply the law to the evidence introduced at trial" is that they suggest the answers to the venireperson. The venire person, not wanting to look obtuse in court, follows along and gives everyone what they want to hear. See, that seems to make more sense. The problem with questions like “But can you follow the law as the judge explains it to you?” and “Will you be able to put aside any preconceived notions and apply the law to the evidence introduced at trial” is that they suggest the answers to the venireperson. The venire person, not wanting to look obtuse in court, follows along and gives everyone what they want to hear.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-31499 Gideon Fri, 16 May 2008 12:37:49 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-31499 Again, I think that's the legal system with blinders on. I find it difficult to believe that someone can "put the State to its burden" and yet state that "the defendant is guilty". Again, I think that’s the legal system with blinders on. I find it difficult to believe that someone can “put the State to its burden” and yet state that “the defendant is guilty”.

]]> By: Woman in Black http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-31441 Woman in Black Fri, 16 May 2008 02:47:53 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-31441 "Rehabilitated" jurors are a fiction; people who believe someone is guilty but "holds the state to its burden" are also fictional. I talked to pretty much every juror who would talk to me after a trial my first several years. They never change their minds. They can point to anything to justify their original mindset. “Rehabilitated” jurors are a fiction; people who believe someone is guilty but “holds the state to its burden” are also fictional. I talked to pretty much every juror who would talk to me after a trial my first several years. They never change their minds. They can point to anything to justify their original mindset.

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-31394 SPO Thu, 15 May 2008 14:51:45 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-31394 I think your a little overdoing it here, Gid. What you really care about is whether someone is going to hold the state to its burden. It certainly is possible to believe someone is guilty in the sense of "they did it" but also committed to holding the state to its burden. I think your a little overdoing it here, Gid. What you really care about is whether someone is going to hold the state to its burden. It certainly is possible to believe someone is guilty in the sense of “they did it” but also committed to holding the state to its burden.

]]> By: Miranda http://apublicdefender.com/2008/05/14/the-problem-with-voir-dire/#comment-31232 Miranda Wed, 14 May 2008 12:42:07 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1209#comment-31232 I don't know, from reading that article you linked, whether that white juror was rehabilitated or not, or why Kelly's attorney didn't use a peremptory - do they have those there? But, to play devil's advocate here, I can imagine a situation in which I would select someone who admitted believing my celebrity client was guilty (though I don't have enough info about this particular juror to know if that's true here). It's all over the news, and we know that people do assume guilt in our culture. If he was candid enough to recognize that and I believed from his responses that he was able to keep an open mind, apply the law, and base his opinion on the actual evidence, I might be happy to have him. I would imagine it's going to be hard to find jurors who don't know who R.Kelly is and who don't already think he had some kind of sexual contact with an underage girl. We know as lawyers that he's presumed innocent and that these are mere allegations, but that's not how jurors think. ( I mean how many R.Kelly jokes have you heard since this story broke??) I might prefer someone who recognizes that from the media stories alone, he assumed guilt, but understands that he can't do that in a court of law and that the things he heard might have been wrong. I'd be more wary of the person who said he/she heard the story and didn't develop any opinion of Kelly or his guilt based on it. That person is either lying or totally oblivious and unaware of his/her own prejudices, which is no good, IMHO. (It's also possible the person feels that way because he/she has intimate or personal experience with the criminal justice system, in which case he/she will not be selected anyway). What might trouble me more about the white juror is his concern about his career and work if he has to serve on the jury. I don’t know, from reading that article you linked, whether that white juror was rehabilitated or not, or why Kelly’s attorney didn’t use a peremptory - do they have those there?

But, to play devil’s advocate here, I can imagine a situation in which I would select someone who admitted believing my celebrity client was guilty (though I don’t have enough info about this particular juror to know if that’s true here). It’s all over the news, and we know that people do assume guilt in our culture. If he was candid enough to recognize that and I believed from his responses that he was able to keep an open mind, apply the law, and base his opinion on the actual evidence, I might be happy to have him. I would imagine it’s going to be hard to find jurors who don’t know who R.Kelly is and who don’t already think he had some kind of sexual contact with an underage girl. We know as lawyers that he’s presumed innocent and that these are mere allegations, but that’s not how jurors think. ( I mean how many R.Kelly jokes have you heard since this story broke??) I might prefer someone who recognizes that from the media stories alone, he assumed guilt, but understands that he can’t do that in a court of law and that the things he heard might have been wrong. I’d be more wary of the person who said he/she heard the story and didn’t develop any opinion of Kelly or his guilt based on it. That person is either lying or totally oblivious and unaware of his/her own prejudices, which is no good, IMHO. (It’s also possible the person feels that way because he/she has intimate or personal experience with the criminal justice system, in which case he/she will not be selected anyway).

What might trouble me more about the white juror is his concern about his career and work if he has to serve on the jury.

]]>