06-12-2024, 07:40 PM
(06-12-2024, 04:51 PM)CJD Wrote: The point of the voir dire process is to eliminate people whose bias would cloud their judgment.
The goal of the defense is to find jurors whose biases would cloud their judgment in a way that is beneficial to the defendant, whether guilty or not.
In the case of biased jurors, they could have a variety of goals. Some may just want to get out of it by appearing biased in a way that easily gets them eliminated or, if they do want to be part of the trial to create a result that they want, mask their biases to get onto the jury.
It isn't so much a matter of lying. More answering questions in a way that does not make one of the attorneys want to eliminate you. So, if they asked you, "What's your opinion of Trump," you would not answer, "I love that man! I'd vote for him a million times if I could!"
You'd maybe say something like, "He's the former president so I respect him for serving this country." Probably wouldn't set off the DA's alarm bells but could subtly indicate to the defense that you may be more sympathetic than you let on. An answer like that would probably require one of the DA's preemptory challenges, which they only have a limited number of.
And then I'm sure in every jury pool there are a hand full of people who don't care whether they are selected for duty or not...
Can't help but think those people would be in the severe minority though, as being a juror offers virtually no benefit unless you want to have an impact on the trial.
I understand what you are saying, and agree if it is a regular citizen, you are 100% on point.
But DJT, New York?!?
Easy to weed out the R's and have jury leaning the other way.
I am not saying they did not listen to the evidence, and jury instructions, nor that they failed to withhold any bias. Only that it would be child's play to select a bias jury in that area.
