RE: Martin and Zimmerman - A reasoned logical discussion
September 12, 2012 at 5:14 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2012 at 5:20 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(September 12, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Clearly I don't understand, because I was under the impression that lawyers have nothing to do with jury selection...I thought that was the job of the presiding judge? I could be wrong, but that is what happens over here in the UK. What is the point of a jury system if lawyers for either side can affect their presumed impartiality?
Here the juror candidates are selected randomly from the total available pool. The candidates are then assigned, presumably randomly, to specific upcoming cases requiring juries. At case level the prosecution and defendant or their lawyers can each challenge and dismiss a specified number of jurors either for cause, or for whim. It is an acknowledged ly vital part of trial lawyer's skill set to be able to assess how prospecive jurors are likely to vote and maneuver to manipulate the jury composition to favor his own side. There are even consultancies that offer expertise in this area.
The excuse offered for the prevelencce of this practice is since the prosecution and defense have opposing objectives, their jury selection maneuvers would nullify eachother's schemes, leaving a fair jury.
The seating of an evidently biased jury is called "Jury nullification". Using jury nullification to acquit mofia dons, high level drug cartell members, prepetrator of racist murders has been such a tradition in parts of this country that it has almost gain legitamcy through length of practice.
