Isn't Jury Selection Jury Tampering?

[Bushknew]

Ideologically, the US is divided into two major camps (Republican and Democrat), shouldnÕt the jury system be divided on that basis as well?

Your selected for jury duty on the basis of being registered to vote anyway.

Separating people solely on economic status, race or religion is not broad enough.

Separating people by political party covers the broadest territory on a variety of issues.

Independents should be categorized under who they voted for president.

If you voted for a Green party candidate, you would be categorized under the Democratic
camp because ideologically, you have more in common with them.

If you voted for a Libertarian party candidate, you would be categorized under the Republican
camp.

And so on ...

In a truly random draw, you could have a majority of Democrats on the jury or visa versa
and that would not be fair.

Justice is not blind, judges are Liberal and Conservative too, and interpret the law through
that lens just as everyone else does.

You could argue that IÕm cherry picking as well for wanting a 50/50 "Republican and Democrat
split".

But, IÕm just trying to minimize the cherry picking because I believe jury selection IS jury tampering.

When you start defining who can be objective or not, you get the flawed system we all ready have, jury tampering.

What do you think?

[kanrok]

1. Jury selection is a misnomer

What your actually doing is de-selecting. You will never truly get an unbiased jury. The best you can do is de-select those who you believe would hold against your client. The other side does the same. There is really no such thing as cherry picking either. The rules regarding voir dire mediate against that concept. Each side will have a specific number of "peremptory" challenges. Peremptory challenges basically give you the option to knock off a prospective juror for just about any reason, excepting race, and in certain circumstances, gender. Once you use up your peremptory challenges, you cannot get rid of a prospective juror absent extreme prejudice, this is called challenging "for cause." Jury tampering, on the other hand, is a totally different concept. Generally speaking, in order for jury tampering to occur, there has to be some kind of extrinsic information getting to either prospective or actual jurors. Things like communication between parties and jurors (a BIG no-no) or bribes or threats. The process of jury selection is really quite fascinating. There is a lot of science and art to doing it properly. IMHO juries generally get it right.

[Bushknew]

2. Communication between parties É

ShouldnÕt juries always be sequestered so this doesnÕt happen?

ThatÕs how they do it in England right?

Jury selection is fascinating. I picked up a book about face reading, written by a jury consultant.

Amazing Face Reading by Mac Fulfer.

Very interesting stuff.

[kanrok]

4. It's actually uncommon to sequester a jury

In the vast majority of jury trials the jurors go home at the end of the day. During the work day they are free to walk around the court house and eat lunch in the same place as the litigants and their attorneys. The jurors are told that they cannot communicate with the litigants or their attorneys. There are severe penalties for attorneys who violate this rule. The jurors are also instructed not to talk about the case during it's pendency with anyone, even other jurors, or to read anything in the media about the case. For the most part the rule works pretty well.

[President Jesus]

3. what does being a Democrat or Republican have to do with committing a...

...crime?

You need to take a break from your computer for awhile. Do yourself a huge favor and don't watch cable news or use the Internet for a day. You'll slowly start to feel yourself drift back into reality.