« Carnival of Cordite | Main | Texas ACLU supports firearm rights »
Jury questions in Moussaoui sentencing trial
The AP is reporting that potential jurors in the Maoussaoui trial are being asked about NRA membership:
"Prosecutors wanted to know whether potential jurors belonged to veterans groups, the American Civil Liberties Union or the National Rifle Association. Defense attorneys wanted to know their favorite TV shows and what bumper stickers are on their cars."
They're generally allowed fairly widely ranging questions, designed to elicit bias (or find out who may be biased your way, too). The prosecution may figure that veteran status or NRA membership would tend to suggest a potential juror would lean their way, and an ACLU membership would suggest the person leaned the other way (esp. since the issue for trial is the death penalty).
Reminds me of when an attorney friend walked past the jury assembly area here and saw a former client. He noticed the guy had a copy of Mein Kampf under his arm, and asked why in the heck he was reading that. The guy replied "would you choose a juror who was reading Mein Kampf?" My friend responded, not if I could help it. "Okay, then why are you asking me why I'm reading Mein Kampf?"
· NRA
3 Comments | Leave a comment
A former Texas State Supreme Court Justice once picked a petit jury of homeless men after the opposing counsel bitched about the case and the fact that it couldn't be settled. The Voir Dire proceedings were pretty interesting to watch. Plaintiff's counsel treated the homeless men like dirt, and the former Justice called them sir and treated them like normal human beings. Guess who won that one?
I wonder what would happen if I were called. (I live in the E.D. Va.) Call me foolish, but I belong to both the NRA and the ACLU. :-)
By the way, Dave, I think we went shooting together back in 1978 or '79. My roommate for part of the time I was in law school worked for the NRA at the time.
Ever see jury selection in British criminal trials? Call 13 people (they used to have to be property owners, don't know if that's still true) give each one a Bible and a card with the oath. Each one holds the Bible and reads the oath individually. If you want to object to a juror you can do so only while they're reading - once they finish the oath, they're on the jury. Oh, and no questions allowed.
I spent the summer of 1966 in London going to the Old Bailey with some barristers. Jurors were challenged only when they obviously couldn't read the oath very well. Jury selection took about 4 minutes. And I never had the feeling that the jury had ignored the facts or the judge's instructions when reaching a verdict.
I often wondered during my legal career (a tax, not a trial, practice) what would happen if we tried that over here?