EPTOn April 17 2015 12:12 IgnE wrote:
Jurors are people randomly selected from the community and then chosen through voir dire. There were probably worse jurors that the defense got rid of during the process. But you can't get rid of everyone. That is your answer.
What I don't understand is your interest in this case. Hernandez is clearly a fucked up human being.
Jurors are people randomly selected from the community and then chosen through voir dire. There were probably worse jurors that the defense got rid of during the process. But you can't get rid of everyone. That is your answer.
What I don't understand is your interest in this case. Hernandez is clearly a fucked up human being.
None in the case really, it's just the first group jury interview I have seen with them answering the types of questions the way they did. Usually high profile case jurors typically try to remain anonymous, don't they? Unless they are writing a book or whatever? And people have little interest in jurors from low profile cases?
I see now people assumed I had any interest in the case itself, a fair mistake, but for those thinking my concern had anything to do with Hernandez or the crimes themselves can be assured that's not what I was focused on. It was just a video catalyst for my pre-existing concerns about jurors.
I see different descriptions of the jury process saying it's to try to get intentionally biased jurors for your side and the idea is that both sides doing that gives you a more or less fair jury, but the legal sites say it's just to observe that they are competent and that their bias's don't disqualify them. Is it one of those things that it's supposed to be to make sure the jurors are competent and such but in practice is used to get the most biased jurors you can (for your side) past the screening process while eliminating the ones you can from the other side?
Or is the idea of getting the most biased in your favor juror on the jury what the law suggests lawyers to do?
