1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Choices and Juries - Jail or no Jail

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Jack19, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. Jack19

    Jack19 Participating Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Eastern CSA
    Interesting article on juries and their perception of weapons used in self defense scenarios.


    also read "What every gun owner needs to know about self defense law."

    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  2. BSA1

    BSA1 Senior Member

    Apr 20, 2011
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    The case is usually decided with the jury selection not with story telling. Volumes has been written about how to select a jury.
  3. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Aug 20, 2012
    Lawyers on both sides have effectively taken away the "jury composed of your peers" to be "juries handpicked to help us win." This is one of the main reasons why cases take so long to be heard initially, the defense and prosecution are passing little sly motions to get juries composed of members who will favor one side or the other.
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Apr 29, 2006
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What balderdash. Jury selection is important, but presenting the case is also important. Volumes have been written about that too.


    1. Nothing in the law of the United States entitles you to a jury of your peers, i. e., people belonging to the same societal group, especially based on age or status, as you. You are entitled to an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

      The notion of a "jury of one's peers" comes from Magna Carta and was indeed intended to refer to being judged by one's equals. Magna Carta was forced on King John by the feudal barons to protect their interests. Their first concern was that they be judged only by nobles of similar rank. (And indeed until relatively recently, a British noble charged with a crime was entitled to be tried in the House of Lords. The last trial in the House of Lords was in 1935, and the trial jurisdiction of the House of Lords was abolished in 1948.)

    2. This is how jury selection works:

      • Each side gets a set number of peremptory challenges and can thereby excuse a limited number of prospective jurors without stating a cause.

        • A lawyer owes an absolute duty of loyalty to his client. He is required to exercise his professional judgment in the best interests of his client.

        • So he will use his peremptory challenges to exclude those people from the jury who he, in the exercise of his professional judgment, believes will be least receptive to his client, his client's position, the witnesses his client might be offering and/or his client's legal arguments.

        • At the same time he will need to use his peremptory challenges to exclude those people from the jury who he, in the exercise of his professional judgment, believes will be most receptive to his client's opponent's position, etc.

      • But he has only a limited number of peremptory challenges. And the other side will be doing exactly the same thing.

      • So the result is that if each side has, say, ten peremptory challenges, the lawyer on each side will excuse without cause the ten possible jurors he has decided will be least desirable from his particular perspective. If there are 50 jurors in the jury pool, the jury will then consist of persons from the remaining group of 30, unless one side or the other can convince the judge of actual bias.

      • The result of the process is probably going to be the most impartial jury available out of that jury pool of 50 people.

    3. It's fashionable to denigrate the jury system and process wthout really understanding it.

Share This Page