From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 2:46:20 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:   
   >    
   > This is called "preemptory challenge," and it's been used by prosecution,   
   plaintiff, and defense attorneys all over over, and since, well, forever.   
   Every DA's office had a set of rules like Wade's, written or unwritten. The   
   prosecutors who left for    
   private practice as defense counsel took these rules with them and applied   
   them on behalf of the accused, albeit with a different thrust and purpose.   
   Nowadays, it's much more nuanced and sophisticated, with the trial lawyers   
   hiding behind a new breed of "   
   jury consultants" who do the same thing as Wade.    
   >    
   One of the biggest mistakes made by the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson case   
   was allowing the case to be moved to Los   
   Angeles rather than in Santa Monica district where the crime occurred. This   
   pretty much guaranteed O.J. would get a   
   sympathetic jury, one that was more than willing to buy into "If the glove   
   doesn't fit, you must acquit.".   
      
   I've sat on four juries, in my life, two civil and two criminal. In every   
   case, both sides used preemptory challenges. The    
   attorneys would tell the prospective jurors that sometimes, it was just a   
   hunch. Other times a juror would give an answer    
   that wasn't enough to disqualify him/her but made the attorney uncomfortable.   
   Prosecutors take people to court because   
   they believe the person they have charged is guilty of the crime for which   
   they are accused. Naturally they want to win and are   
   going to try to seat a jury they believe gives them the best chance to obtain   
   a conviction. There's absolutely nothing wrong    
   with that. The system isn't perfect and sometimes innocent people do get   
   convicted. It's a far more common occurrence   
   that guilty people get acquitted because the system stacks the deck against   
   the state. That's how it should be in a criminal   
   case. It should be difficult to convict someone because the state is trying to   
   deprive someone of life, liberty, or property.    
   That doesn't ensure that innocent people won't on rare occasions get   
   convicted, but it does lessen the chances.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)