Progressives being EXcluded from juries??

[AnnInLa]

From a Kos diarist, wytcld, comes this post:

At holiday dinner my inlaw's inlaw in law, a New Jersey state prosecutor, told us that prosecutors now ask all potential jurors if we ever read "progressive blogs," and reject us from juries if the answer is "Yes." Meanwhile, if a perp has been, say, involved in an assault which nearly removed the nose from the victim's face, prosecutors are working closely with armed services recruiters to offer him the chance to avoid trial and punishment by accepting recruitment.

more at

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/29/112951/04


((would you tell the truth about reading progressive blogs, or would you lie, thinking it was none of their business or discriminatory? OTH, it is a good way to get out of jury duty, I guess. Sigh.))

[aquart]

1. Are they allowed to ask if you're a Republican or a Democrat?

Because this looks like a backdoor question to get that answer.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. It doesn't work that way.

Prosecutors don't just get to exclude whoever-the-fuck-we-feel-like-excluding from juries. They have a specific, limited number of challenges, and they can use them in any way they please. Any prosecutor who would use this as a blanket litmus test for jurors is an idiot. You exclude jurors based on factors that change from case to case. So whoever's in-law's in-law's mother of my brother's father's sisters podiatrist doesn't know WTF they are talking about.

[AnnInLa]

6. One of the commentors explained it thusly:

In the comment thread, Scorponic said:

You cannot use peremptory challenges (i.e., your allotted number of "no-cause" challenges, for which no reason need be given) to eliminate persons of a specific race or gender. If I remember correctly from 1st year Constitutional Law, there are also limits on using peremptory challenges to eliminate persons with specific political views, unless holding a particular view might be prejudicial to the defense or prosecution -- e.g., the prosecution in a capital case may eliminate persons who believe the death penalty is immoral. Of course, the trick has always been to establish that the prosecution is actually eliminating people on such disfavored grounds. He or she can always think of a permitted reason if forced to explain, and almost any reason will do. Thus, you have to wait until the prosecution's challenges reveal a pattern that demonstrates an illegitimate motivation. In a case where the jury pool contains only one, two or three avowed progressives, that won't be sufficient to demonstrate a pattern.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/29/112951/04

[Liberty Belle]

3. Kick! This is an outrage.

If I were asked that question, I would say that I both read and write progressive blogs, and further that if excluded from jury service for that reason I would seek legal counsel to enforce my citizens' right to serve on a jury.

Where is the ACLU? This sounds like something they should take on and challenge.

:patriot:

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Can a person refuse to answer?

I'm coming up for jury duty in February. When faced with questions like that, can I refuse by saying that I am guaranteed a right to privacy with regards to political beliefs and that any such beliefs have no relevance to my competence as a jurist?

[rox63]

5. I served on a jury this year

And no one asked me anything like that. (I'm in MA)

Perhaps the case has some connection to blogs, and that's why they asked? :shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

7. In Mass., Anyone With An Above Average IQ is Booted

A few years ago, I was interviewed as a prospective juror for a big murder case. The judge interviewed me, gave me a thumbs up, but the prosecutor immediately tossed me. I thought this was odd.

I asked a friend of ours who is a criminal defense lawyer. She said that anyone who is likely to be smart gets tossed from any trial that will likely last more than a few days - smart people can't stand the tedium of long trials.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. When my husband was summoned for jury duty in Texas

years ago, they asked him what bumper stickers were on his car. This could be another way of finding out your political beliefs.

[AnnInLa]

10. Yes. Also, asking what books you read,

what magazines you subscribe to, which outlets supply your news.

Actually this has always been done: In capital cases which involve the death penalty, your political leaning would be important.

In civil cases, I'm sure that "bleeding hearts" would always identify with the individual, against the corporation. In serious criminal cases, "bleeding hearts" might balk at sending an individual to prison for extended period. In drug cases, "bleeding hearts" might support the decriminalization of certain drugs, or rehab over imprisonment. Repukes/Conservatives might identify with the Police testimony, may be "law and order" types, and may be excluded by the defense.

On the other hand, the defense, in a criminal case, may actually prefer Progressives....in a civil case, the plaintiff may prefer Progressives.

Probably, asking outright if you are a Progressive or a Dem or a Repuke might be a no-no (I don't know), but there are other ways to find out that information, and as long as there is no blatant pattern of exclusion in the jury pool, it is OK.

I think it's always been done, it's just never been expressed in this way in a Kos diary. LOL

[Cleita]

9. I have been eliminated for not supporting the death penalty. n/t