04-21-2021, 05:19 PM
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
[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.
You’re constructing a tenuous “what if”.
1. Lawyers have a number of peremptory juror dismissals; no explanation needed for doing so.
2. In a trial with a LEO as a defendant, no prosecutor would fail to ask this specific question of all potential jurors.
3. If a juror was asked and lied, they would be in contempt of court, removed from the jury, and likely seriously fined.
1) Peremptory only works if they ask the right questions and there's usually a limit to the number they can do.
2) Sure, but see #1.
3) Sure, but see #1, and also the fact that whether or not they're lying depends on how a question is phrased. If someone is asked, "do you have any LEOs in your immediate family", that's different from asking, "do you have any LEOs anywhere in your family". There are lots of jurors out there who probably have LEOs in their family, just not in the immediate family, and it also depends on how you define "immediate".