PDA

View Full Version : Jury science/picking..?? Should it be legal??



garhkal
09-21-2016, 04:26 AM
Just got done watching the first episode of Michael Weatherly's Bull, and after seeing the same thing almost in the film Runaway jury, it made me wonder.

SHOULD those sorts of firms, who help lawyers pick what jurors to boot/keep on, etc, be legal?? As its imo a form of jury manipulation..

MikeKerriii
09-21-2016, 06:00 AM
Just got done watching the first episode of Michael Weatherly's Bull, and after seeing the same thing almost in the film Runaway jury, it made me wonder.

SHOULD those sorts of firms, who help lawyers pick what jurors to boot/keep on, etc, be legal?? As its imo a form of jury manipulation..
Should it also be banned when DAs do it? I think kicking someone off a jury without real justification should be banned, but if one side can do it. both sides should be able to do it.

Since they do not contact or influence the individual jurors in any unlawful way, it can not be jury manipulation, Jury pool manipulation is regrettable a part of criminal law used by both sides

I also think that getting out of jury duty should be insanely hard to do. some obligations should not be easy to skate away from..

garhkal
09-21-2016, 06:54 AM
Should it also be banned when DAs do it? I think kicking someone off a jury without real justification should be banned, but if one side can do it. both sides should be able to do it.

Since they do not contact or influence the individual jurors in any unlawful way, it can not be jury manipulation, Jury pool manipulation is regrettable a part of criminal law used by both sides

I also think that getting out of jury duty should be insanely hard to do. some obligations should not be easy to skate away from..

But does the DA have a team of 'quacks' helping him psychoanalize the jury?

efmbman
09-21-2016, 11:50 AM
"Quacks" is subjective. In high profile cases, judges tend to grant more leeway in jury selection. In civil cases, millions or even billions may be at stake. By allowing this leeway in the form of preemptive strikes and comprehensive voir dire, it may help to eliminate the composition of the jury as a basis for an appeal. As long as both the prosecution and the defense get the same leeway, I don't have a problem with it. I think it takes on an important function in today's world due to the use of social media and around the clock news coverage. I imagine it is becoming increasingly difficult to find impartial jurors.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 01:12 PM
But does the DA have a team of 'quacks' helping him psychoanalize the jury?

Well, the alternative is to NOT allow the lawyers any say in who gets on the jury. I suppose that is possible...you just get 12 random people and take it. Of course, the potential that one biased juror can sway the outcome is real. Maybe the court could independently review jurors for biases and appoint them independently.

If the legal teams are allowed a say in examining the jury...then you have to accept that some of them will be better at it than others. Those people have the right to demand payment for their talent.

garhkal
09-21-2016, 05:45 PM
If it was just the ruling out of those prior to the actual trial starting i could see it, but with it seeming he was manipulating people DURING The trial (we gotta get the kid to act all wussy and blame ole dad to get that one white gal on the defenses side..

LogDog
09-21-2016, 06:12 PM
The idea of having a professional helping a lawyer decide who to have on a jury has been around a long time and most people aren't aware of it so a TV show about it makes it interesting and different. The prosecution and the defense usually have a limited number of challenges in which they can excuse prospective juror. Any decent prosecution or defense lawyer will try to get a jury that would be favorable to their case so, of course, they're going to try and pack the jury.

I was called for jury duty a couple of years ago and got as far as being in the first group of prospective juror to be questioned by the prosecution and defense on a drug case. After I gave my name and occupation (retired SMSgt) I was asked if I had ever served on a jury before and what was it about. I said I served on a Courts Martial panel for a drug case. The defense lawyer never asked me a question but immediately used one of his challenges to dismiss me. I figured it was because I was retired military and he thought I would be hostile to his client but had he asked the verdict in the trial I would have told him the truth, a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

The use of someone to help pick a juror isn't an exact science but more likely someone who can "read" people by the visual and verbal clues they give.

efmbman
09-21-2016, 07:32 PM
If it was just the ruling out of those prior to the actual trial starting i could see it, but with it seeming he was manipulating people DURING The trial (we gotta get the kid to act all wussy and blame ole dad to get that one white gal on the defenses side..

Both sides do that. To me, it's wise to have someone on your team watching the jury for reaction during key testimony. It's like having an assistant coach / offensive or defensive coordinator watching for key aspects of the football game. In a trial, just as in virtually every situation in life, you play every card in the deck.

garhkal
09-21-2016, 08:39 PM
The idea of having a professional helping a lawyer decide who to have on a jury has been around a long time and most people aren't aware of it so a TV show about it makes it interesting and different. The prosecution and the defense usually have a limited number of challenges in which they can excuse prospective juror. Any decent prosecution or defense lawyer will try to get a jury that would be favorable to their case so, of course, they're going to try and pack the jury.

I was called for jury duty a couple of years ago and got as far as being in the first group of prospective juror to be questioned by the prosecution and defense on a drug case. After I gave my name and occupation (retired SMSgt) I was asked if I had ever served on a jury before and what was it about. I said I served on a Courts Martial panel for a drug case. The defense lawyer never asked me a question but immediately used one of his challenges to dismiss me. I figured it was because I was retired military and he thought I would be hostile to his client but had he asked the verdict in the trial I would have told him the truth, a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

Certainly sounds like that lawyer dismissed you without proper cause.. just cause of who you were.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 09:19 PM
If it was just the ruling out of those prior to the actual trial starting i could see it, but with it seeming he was manipulating people DURING The trial (we gotta get the kid to act all wussy and blame ole dad to get that one white gal on the defenses side..

I'm not sure I follow you...you are saying it should be illegal for a lawyer to play to the jury?

That's kind of the whole deal of lawyering...convince the jury.

MikeKerriii
09-21-2016, 10:22 PM
But does the DA have a team of 'quacks' helping him psychoanalize the jury? On major cases he normally does, he usually has many times the resources of every kind than the defense does.

MikeKerriii
09-21-2016, 10:24 PM
If it was just the ruling out of those prior to the actual trial starting i could see it, but with it seeming he was manipulating people DURING The trial (we gotta get the kid to act all wussy and blame ole dad to get that one white gal on the defenses side..



Lawyers who do that are simply their doing job, convincing the jury is what they are paid to do

MikeKerriii
09-21-2016, 10:27 PM
Certainly sounds like that lawyer dismissed you without proper cause.. just cause of who you were.
.
Lawyers get to make a certain mumber of challenges on a "just becasue" basis in most states

SeaLawyer
09-22-2016, 12:19 AM
We have bigger issues than "jury manipulation." How about "Presidential Manipulation?" Of course it goes on!!! Even without it, do you not believe the jury is slanted/poisoned by external input??? Would you disagree with anyone that is in your chain of command knowin your next promotion is in the palm of thier hands??? Sadly, money buys statements and opinons in most people these days!

garhkal
09-22-2016, 03:33 AM
I'm not sure I follow you...you are saying it should be illegal for a lawyer to play to the jury?

That's kind of the whole deal of lawyering...convince the jury.

I've always thought it should be facts and logic winning them over. NOT plays on emotional 'stressors'..

Bos Mutus
09-22-2016, 03:36 AM
I've always thought it should be facts and logic winning them over. NOT plays on emotional 'stressors'..

Your best bet is to request trial by judge instead of jury.

of course, if your lawyer advises you that a jury is your best chance, you'll probably change that tune

For example...you kill the guy leaving your house that just raped your wife. Chances are you violated the letter of the law, but might get sympathy and understanding from a jury

MikeKerriii
09-22-2016, 04:10 AM
I've always thought it should be facts and logic winning them over. NOT plays on emotional 'stressors'..

As long as jurors are humans facts will ALWAYS take second place,

Bos Mutus
09-22-2016, 04:43 AM
As long as jurors are humans facts will ALWAYS take second place,

Trial by Jury of Vulcans?

LogDog
09-22-2016, 05:26 AM
Trial by Jury of Vulcans?
Trial by Klingon would just result in a war.
Trial by Romulan would result in a cloaked verdict.
Trial by Ferengi would be decided by the highest bidder.
Trial by Borg wouldn't matter because everyone would be assimilated; Resistance if Futile.

garhkal
09-22-2016, 06:06 PM
As long as jurors are humans facts will ALWAYS take second place,

Unfortunately that's the truth these days..