you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 90 points 2 years ago (7 children)

That's the jury working exactly they way it should

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Right, not sure what they're complaining about.

    They're just going to keep going through jury pools until they can find enough bootlickers, which seems to be the antithesis of the "jury of your peers" system.

    His peers find his actions justifiable. The rich can get over it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Jurors have to be approved by both the defense and the prosecution. They will not get a 100% bootlicker jury

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    On this particular case they will find a way. A little nudge here, a few background checks moved to the top of the queue there. I think the way it works is that lawyers have only so many chances to reject a jury candidate and then they run out of rejections. Thats what I saw on TV anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    No. Again, either the prosecutor or the defense can reject any juror

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    I agree, but isnt it true that either side only gets the opportunity to reject so many candidates before they lose the option to reject? They cant just keep on rejecting forever right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There is no rule, only a judge that may get annoyed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment