And yet with millions of people to choose from I don’t think they will have a terrible time finding some that are pro-corporation and pro-billionaire and/or sufficiently against killing no matter what the justification.
Isn’t it a random selection (ignoring any possibility for manipulation for a moment) and then each lawyer gets a certain number of objections to a juror?
I guess with this they can still try and stack a CEO sympathetic jury still.
Trying to rig the jury to be sympathetic to your side is one essential aspect of good lawyering. The rules are theoretically just objective filters applied to a random sample, but in practice it is a pure contest of skill between the two legal teams.
And yet with millions of people to choose from I don’t think they will have a terrible time finding some that are pro-corporation and pro-billionaire and/or sufficiently against killing no matter what the justification.
Isn’t it a random selection (ignoring any possibility for manipulation for a moment) and then each lawyer gets a certain number of objections to a juror?
I guess with this they can still try and stack a CEO sympathetic jury still.
Trying to rig the jury to be sympathetic to your side is one essential aspect of good lawyering. The rules are theoretically just objective filters applied to a random sample, but in practice it is a pure contest of skill between the two legal teams.
Oh I’m not against the practice you need to remove people that are not going to be impartial.
I just find jurisprudence interesting in general so thought I would mention it.
Trial by a jury of his “peers”… a group of healthy, wealthy businessmen.