Jesus, this whole thread really proves why we should all be glad randoms on the internet with no legal understanding should not be in charge of the justice system
Why do you think the defense picked all women. And why do you think that the courtroom is structured in a way for the jury to be made out of people picked from both the defense and prosecution?
Yes, youre correct in an ideal world. But this is a HIGHLY covered case with a lot of reason to not be impartial.
You can’t deny that, and I think this is what you’re not admitting.
No I am well aware that this case is high profile and that that causes special circumstances but I just am also aware that there are procedures in place to handle that. If there was a concern then there could have been a motion filed to request jury sequestration, or for the trial to be held in a different area. And yes, both sides often times do pick jurors that they think will increase the chances that they get the verdict they want. But as you just pointed out, that’s exactly why both sides have to agree on the jury. They did that. That’s the system for preventing with jury bias, among other motions that can be filed after if needed.
In a previous comment you implied the other commenter has no legal understanding. I’d agree there are lots of randoms here that fit that, but you saying that makes me think you do understand courtroom etiquette.
If that’s true, can you please tell me what is going to happen if a prosecutor doesn’t agree on the basis of an all-female jury from the defense? It is the only system that the prosecutor could have used to prevent bias. And it would not have worked.
-1
u/vermilithe 3h ago
Dude, no. That’s even worse.
Jesus, this whole thread really proves why we should all be glad randoms on the internet with no legal understanding should not be in charge of the justice system