this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024

326 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19223 readers

2792 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

326

People can still be kicked off juries for being LGBTQ+. This out congresswoman's bill would end that (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago

What a world. You can choose to be something like a xtian, and few bat an eye, but if you are LGBTQ+, apparently, that could make you unable to be on the jury?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Do US juries need a reason to kick people off? Isn't it like both sides in a case get to throw off a set amount of people?

To me, the whole article seems like the US justice system coming apart at the seams because of it having two publics with two sets of norms.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Pretty much. Both sides go back and forth.

If you never been in jury duty, both sides look at the selected jurors (sometimes 20-40 ppl) and their goal is to shave it to a smaller number, like 12.

Wear gauges? Have purple hair? Be a person of color?

If you don't fit a specific profile to help them win... You're gone.

During one of the selected cases where I was part of being selected, they absolutely asked you questions about your job and family, to get a sense of your background.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. So if you wanna get kicked out just wear a Mohawk and fake ear piercings to make it clear you're punk.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

[redacted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, technically, the USA has what is called "Protected Classes" such as race, ethnicity, and disability who, for the reason of being who they are, cannot be excluded or disadvantaged as a result of.

In most of the USA, sexual orientation or other identities are not in any way protected.

Except for like a buttload of nuances and small changes and court decisions over the course of a century or two.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

The point op is making though is that in court a attorny can strike people with minimal reason. Which includes all those protected classes. They have a limited amount of those strikes but they can do whatever they want with them.

For instance, if the person on trial is part of "religion A" and that religion is known to stick together with a cult like fervor an attorney could strike strike a juror of religion A for "cause".

[–] Maeve 3 points 6 months ago

So, because I was reminded of Alito's take, I got curious and was pleasantly surprised by Wikipedia's entry about religions that are lgbtq friendly.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You can be kicked off for any reason.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago (3 children)

You cannot be kicked off for any reason. Class and race are invalid grounds for removal, but you can be removed for no reason.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

As a person on a jury, I was kicked off as the only person of color. No questions went my way. I just sat there and 3 hours later, I wasn't part of it.

We all can make assumptions that maybe because I match the skin tone of the defendant, and all three police officers were white, and it was post-BLM. But they absolutely won't say that. And why would they?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There are more protected classes than economic status and race at the federal level and some states have expanded classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group?wprov=sfti1#United_States

You cannot be removed from a jury ‘for no reason’. A judge may remove you from a jury if they believe a juror has bias or contact toward or with either the defendant. Or if the judge believes you are unwilling or incapable of following the law.

You can however be not selected for a jury via two means, a challenge for cause or a peremptory challenge. A challenge for cause is when the lawyer believes you have a genuine prejudice or bias against the defendant. A peremptory challenge is where lawyers can basically ask a judge to remove any juror from the selection pool, they only get a set number of these and they can’t violate the protected classes mentioned earlier, but they can be muuuuuch more loosely applied during proceedings.

IANAL I just spent a few min researching and watched that one cgp video about jury nullification a while back. And voir dire is fun to say.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Or if the judge believes you are unwilling or incapable of following the law.

I remember being asked questions during the jury screening process, and I found it curious that the language the judge was using about "following the law" seemed to exclude jury nullification. I don't know if that's a stock bit of language or something particular to that judge, but it did bother me in the moment and for some time after.

Though - it turns out for the case in question, I don't think the relevant laws would be something too many would question - AFAIK, the defendant was accused of assaulting a police officer. I don't think there were things like drug charges. Most people would agree that law(s) against assaulting anyone are just laws. Some laws like drug "laws" have been, and are, highly controversial, however, and I wonder if that judge gives the same spiel to everyone.

In any case, I did not make the cut for whatever reason. But I'm annoyed by the notion that people may be sitting on juries thinking they have to hand down a guilty verdict for laws they don't even think are just, because "it's a law". This was before Amendment 64 passed here in Colorado, by the way.

[–] Mnemnosyne 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly the reason for those questions. So they can ask 'would you consider using jury nullification' without informing people that jury nullification exists.

And also so that if you at some point admit something that sounds like you're voting not guilty because you disagree with the law, they can kick you off the jury and possibly charge you with perjury.

If you ever find yourself in a jury and intend to nullify, you must not admit it ever: you must maintain simply that you are not convinced by the evidence.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I should stress that IANAL, but the notion that they are trying to prevent jury nullification is what I think really sticks in my craw. Most especially when it comes to all the nonsense around drug policy in this country. Even with Amendment 64 passed in Colorado, and other states following suit, we have a long, long way to go to roll back the Nixon-level bullshit. And jury nullification is often the only tool available to citizens to at least do something about it when they are faced with that choice. And people like this judge are even trying to take that little bit of power away from us.

[–] Mnemnosyne 4 points 6 months ago

It's kind of a difficult issue. Jury nullification has been used for both good and bad, with the simplest and most obvious examples being from Civil War type stuff - people who unambiguously broke the law against helping slaves escape have had their verdicts nullified. Good thing. But also people who lynched black people in the south have had their verdicts nullified. Bad thing.

Making sure that verdicts are determined purely based on the law and whether the law was broken means that people need to work to change the law, they can't just apply the law unevenly by nullifying against some defendants and not against others. So I can see the case for nullification being a bad thing. Ideally, you deal with that by removing or reworking the law so that it doesn't come to the point of needing nullification.

But, well, reality isn't ideal. Still, it's unavoidable - as long as a jury can't be forced to explain the reasoning behind their verdict beyond insisting 'I was not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' and as long as a jury verdict of Not Guilty is final and cannot be retried, jury nullification will de facto exist. That said, it's the entire system not just 'this judge' that is attempting to prevent jury nullification from happening. The judge's question about following the law is boilerplate standard basically everywhere, and it's a systematic and intentional attempt to weed out potential jury nullifiers.

[–] activ8r 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Technically true, but if you can be kicked for no reason, you can be kicked for any reason.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Yes, though the other side is allowed to challenge your reasons if there’s a theme in your eliminations and each side can only do it so many times. You also can’t ask too much personal information, though that varies based on the case.