And that tells me that you don't really understand much jury selection.....That's why they have voir dire ....
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.
- 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.
- 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. But it won't be either sides ideal jury. The worst choices for either side will have been weeded out, but those remaining will have the usual assortment of prejudices, non-rational beliefs, and emotional quirks commonly found in any random group of people.