04-21-2021, 12:52 AM
PeterB wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=PeterB]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.
I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...
I am very confident that this question was part of the extensive questionnaire that was give to all potential jurors in this case.
Right, but I think it's debatable whether someone having a LEO as a member of their family would be grounds for automatic removal from the juror pool, and then there's also always the possibility of someone simply not being asked exactly the right question and/or leaving out some information.
Who said anything about “grounds for automatic removal”? They’re called peremptory strikes, and this is what they’re used for by the prosecution in a case like this.