jury selection is a very tedious process where every juror is interviewed by the judge and possibly both sides. They get whittled down by the court before being fully assigned, and then the prosecution and defense get to boot a certain number of jurors.
advising on jury selection is actually very lucrative business with both sides dishing out massive amounts of cash to make those checks.
in any case, in this situation, it’s not that they’re looking for unbiased jurors, it’s that they’re looking to balance out the biases of the individual jurors with jurors of apposing bias. I mean, you’d have to be living under a rock at this point to not have a bias as far as trump is concerned.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
You can’t just balance out the bias though.
If one juror just plain will not return a guilty or not guilty verdict, then the whole trial is for naught.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Pretty sure it’s a hung jury and they do it again (or bring in an alternate that’s been in the trial watching every thing as well.)
You’re right it’s a problem. Would you prefer trial by combat?
pseudonym@monyet.cc 1 year ago
For Trump? Yes!
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’d prefer trial by ordeal. Hog tie him and toss him in a pond. Sinking? Innocent. Floating guilty.
The problem is this system would almost certainly opress more people.
Our current system is quite flawed. But it’s not nearly as flawed as it could be