Talk:Jury selection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Double Standards allowed during Voir Dire[edit]

I think we should have an article for every country[pojpoj 1]

The article states:

Generally, defense attorneys exclude jurors who have professions or backgrounds similar to that of the victim and who could thus feel an emotional link to them, while prosecuting attorneys exclude jurors who might show affinity to the defendant. However, in the United States, if the prosecution excludes a minority group member and the defense challenges, under Batson rules the prosecution must provide a race-neutral reason for the exclusion (later extended by court rulings to gender-neutral reasons as well).

It sounds to me that prospective jurors are allowed to have an emotional link to the defendant through race or gender but not through profession. What about sexuality or religion? It sounds to me like this is a blatant double standard as some kinds of emotional attachments are allowed and others are not. I think this double standard should be pointed out in more detail. 72.209.12.250 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Jury Nullification[edit]

I think this article should also point out that voir dire serves to increase conviction rates by eliminating the possibility of jury nullification. The state is in effect stacking the deck in favor of convictions by eliminating those who take issue with the law the defendant is being prosecuted under.

A Decision Quest/National Law Journal poll in October 1998 found that three out of four Americans eligible to serve on a jury say they would act on their own beliefs of right and wrong regardless of legal instructions from a judge.

Instead realizing that there are many bad laws on the books that people would not see others prosecuted under, judges and prosecutors have jurors removed who are honest enough to admit to believing justice is about right and wrong, moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, not was is legal/illegal.

When 3/4 Americans would legally have to be removed during voir dire one should recognize that voir dire is frakked up and no longer giving defendants an impartial jury of their peers.

I do no see these points being raised in this article. 72.209.12.250 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --chaser - t 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Article in the news[edit]

This article was mentioned, with a link, at Daily Kos today. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Both are pretty much covering the exact same content and should be merged. Q T C 05:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They should remain as two separate articles, due to the lack of overlap among subject matters if the articles are written properly. Jury selection is a topic that focuses more on how jurors are chosen from the population and how the final set of jurors and their alternates is culled from the venire. Jury duty should properly deal with the requirement of jurors to serve if called upon to do so by the state. Tisane (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: As TISANE says, they're entirely different subjects. Jury duty is the perceived moral obligation of a citizen to serve as a juror if called. Jury selection is how the courts go about deciding which citizens will be called (and, in voir dire, asked to remain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.131.107 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Women on Missouri juries[edit]

The article currently claims that "[i]n Missouri, women are not obligated to serve but are allowed to if desired." As this statement is unsourced and appears to be in direct conflict with the holding of Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), I removed it. If you choose to place it back in the article, please find a source that states that this is actually current practice in Missouri, as it may be in Missouri's statutes but not actually applied due to its unconstitutionality.  Rebbing  talk  23:28, 29 June 2010

Aliens on juries[edit]

Apparently for some of the municipal juries, Federal citizenship isn't being required. I've see this a couple of times. In some of the lower courts the citizen pool is small, they have decided that they need to start selecting non-citizens who are long term permanent residents. If the candidate was a lawful resident for more than five years and somehow registered, like from a drivers license; the city were grabbing those folks too. But was that really legal? Mostly it was for petite court stuff. 98.232.106.203 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=pojpoj> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=pojpoj}} template (see the help page).