You say "fair for your case", but the whole point of voir dire is to find an impartial jury. If the jury is only fair for your case, then they are partial. Being fair and being pro your side is not the same thing. Further, it's a defendant's right to a jury, not a prosecution. Why does the prosecution even get a say in the first place when they have no right to a jury. This is so wrong in so many ways. You also say that if a juror says that can't be impartial then they are automatically removed. This is not always true as they go through a rehabilitative process and the trial court may allow them to continue to serve. Although, they SHOULD be removed.
"Why does the prosecution even get a say in the first place" - You said it yourself: "the whole point of voir dire is to find an impartial jury. If the jury is only fair for your case, then they are partial" Also, many jurors that are "removed" for not being impartial ARE allowed to continue to serve...just in another case...provided of course that the reason that they are removed means that they might be able to be impartial in another case. If someone has something against the justice system or absolutely does not want to be on a jury, it's too risky putting them on there and I would not be calling them back.
Asking a prospective juror directly if he/she can be fair seems a fool's errand. 99% of people would say publicly they could be fair. The point of voir dire should be get a prospective juror's actual opinion not just a knee-jerk response.
Goodness. This lawyer seems to have taken an adversarial position against the jury, any jury. The law is not supposed to be a competition but a means to get to the truth. A lawyer with this kind of attitude can be spotted a mile away, and a jury will be able to spot this.
What about a case where a Newfoundland bites my hand, making it bleed? I had stopped by & petted Ruby MANY MANY times. Sometimes I didn't have time to stop, so I would call out, "Hi, Ruby!" and she would bark to me. One day, I stopped by & she was in the back yard. I called out, "Hey, Ruby!" She bounded forward, but instead of jumping up to hold herself up on the fence by her front legs, she lowered her head & bit my hand hard enough to make it bleed!
"You're watching MrLawSchool but you should be studying." You're damn right I should
So, just be bias, then your chances of being selected is low
Earl Sweatshirt and Alchemist brought me here
still waiting for the album to be ported here lol
same loll
Do you have to answer questions? I would refuse?
You would have to answer questions otherwise you would be held in contempt of court
@jensmalzer6344 could you answer in private?
Huh.
And here I thought Voir Dire was a Castlevania villain.
Very helpful
Thank you 👍👍👍👍👍👍
You say "fair for your case", but the whole point of voir dire is to find an impartial jury. If the jury is only fair for your case, then they are partial. Being fair and being pro your side is not the same thing. Further, it's a defendant's right to a jury, not a prosecution. Why does the prosecution even get a say in the first place when they have no right to a jury. This is so wrong in so many ways. You also say that if a juror says that can't be impartial then they are automatically removed. This is not always true as they go through a rehabilitative process and the trial court may allow them to continue to serve. Although, they SHOULD be removed.
"Why does the prosecution even get a say in the first place" - You said it yourself: "the whole point of voir dire is to find an impartial jury. If the jury is only fair for your case, then they are partial"
Also, many jurors that are "removed" for not being impartial ARE allowed to continue to serve...just in another case...provided of course that the reason that they are removed means that they might be able to be impartial in another case. If someone has something against the justice system or absolutely does not want to be on a jury, it's too risky putting them on there and I would not be calling them back.
What law school did you pretend to go to?
Asking a prospective juror directly if he/she can be fair seems a fool's errand. 99% of people would say publicly they could be fair. The point of voir dire should be get a prospective juror's actual opinion not just a knee-jerk response.
I would be like yeah i dont really know, maybe. Im not sure . I guess, it depends
This is an invasion if privacy
Jury system is antiquated
You got a better idea?
@@user-sp8eb6iz7f jury duty degree
Goodness. This lawyer seems to have taken an adversarial position against the jury, any jury. The law is not supposed to be a competition but a means to get to the truth. A lawyer with this kind of attitude can be spotted a mile away, and a jury will be able to spot this.
What about a case where a Newfoundland bites my hand, making it bleed? I had stopped by & petted Ruby MANY MANY times. Sometimes I didn't have time to stop, so I would call out, "Hi, Ruby!" and she would bark to me. One day, I stopped by & she was in the back yard. I called out, "Hey, Ruby!" She bounded forward, but instead of jumping up to hold herself up on the fence by her front legs, she lowered her head & bit my hand hard enough to make it bleed!