Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should really do some research on how these things work. It isn't like the defense can say, "These 24 people all dislike my client, so none of them can be on the jury!". ( I don't know how many people were chosen from, but you get my point). They only have a certain amount of "strikes" they can use. If you have more people biased against your client than you have strikes, you have a problem.
I know exactly how it works as I've followed criminal cases for a long time.
- In many big cases the defense (and occasionally the state) will employ jury consultants to help pick the jury.
- Questionnaires are given to all potential jurors before they ever start getting questioned by voir dire, so each side can see who they are, their opinions, prior troubles with the law, etc, etc.
- Both sides get an equal number of "peremptory strikes" which means they can strike a potential juror for no stated reason at all. And yes, those are limited equally on both sides.
- Then there are potential jurors who during questioning make it clear they cannot serve or have already formed an opinion. Those don't count against peremptory strikes for either side and a potential juror dismissed is for cause. The judge helps do some questioning with prospective jurors, as needed.
In the end the jury has been selected after questioning by both sides and both the state and the defense have helped select the jury (good or bad).
That's how it works.
You understand the defense team also helped select the jury, right? Both sides participate in voir dire and question every potential juror, to make sure someone with a bias or preconceived notion of a defendant's guilt does not get on the jury.
I do indeed, as I've served on juries. You understand if an entire community is biased it doesn't matter how many questionnaires you have or strikes. You will not get an unbiased jury. In a small community like this, where everyone knows everyone else and most are intermarrying amongst families, you will be hard pressed to get anything unbiased. The trial should have been moved.
I know exactly how it works as I've followed criminal cases for a long time.
- In many big cases the defense (and occasionally the state) will employ jury consultants to help pick the jury.
- Questionnaires are given to all potential jurors before they ever start getting questioned by voir dire, so each side can see who they are, their opinions, prior troubles with the law, etc, etc.
- Both sides get an equal number of "peremptory strikes" which means they can strike a potential juror for no stated reason at all. And yes, those are limited equally on both sides.
- Then there are potential jurors who during questioning make it clear they cannot serve or have already formed an opinion. Those don't count against peremptory strikes for either side and a potential juror dismissed is for cause. The judge helps do some questioning with prospective jurors, as needed.
In the end the jury has been selected after questioning by both sides and both the state and the defense have helped select the jury (good or bad).
That's how it works.
Ok, and if the vast majority were biased, you still couldn't get rid of them all. You couldn't even get it down to a manageable number. You are talking about a community where this was on the news daily. A community that heard all sorts of things from the prosecutor that simply were not true, or were embellished. Everyone had heard of this case. At least everyone with a TV in the area. (Or internet, or coworkers, or family, etc)
The point is, you seem to think that the defense could get ALL of the biased people out, and that is simply not the case.
The point is, you seem to think that the defense could get ALL of the biased people out, and that is simply not the case.
No, my point is that juries are selected by both sides. There can also be bias against the state too, especially by people who don't trust anyone in law enforcement (it does happen, believe it or not).
No, my point is that juries are selected by both sides. There can also be bias against the state too, especially by people who don't trust anyone in law enforcement (it does happen, believe it or not).
Oh, I know it happens. In this specific case though, it was obvious that the majority of the community disliked and did not trust the Avery's, and the prosecutor's handling of the case in the media would have led to even more bias.
My point, is simply that there would have been many more biased AGAINST Avery than against the state. This is not every case, but it is certainly true in this one. I don't believe you could have given the defense enough strikes to get all the bias out of there. It should have been moved.
Quite frankly, finding out the fact this sadistic Avery loser doused a cat with accelerant and threw it in a fire already has me wanting to see him do decades in prison. And I make no apologies for that in the least. I personally think animal cruelty should be a felony in every state with very stiff penalties. That alone would have disqualified me to ever be seated on his jury because he absolutely did that, with zero doubt.
I ve finished watching this documentary yesterday and OMG, im ENRAGED
That Ken Kratz clown makes me wanna just throw something at the tv (not surprised at all that he ended up being a sexual offender with a moral superiority complex)
Also Len Kachinsky and that stupid smirk, the judge, the obvious liars colburn and lenk, and the investigators. Hope Karma gets to all of them, what a waste of human air.
Also, the legal system, that ****ed up stupid town, the society in general that obviously accepts that the legal system only works for some type of people. The presumption of innocence obviously does not apply to white trash, black people, inmigrants, etc, etc, etc. This is all SO ****ed up it makes me wanna cry in anger.
I feel the worst for those poor Steven Averys parents . The hell they ve been in the last 30 years...
But also, Brendan Dassey, that extremely limited kid who barely understands whats going on, dragged into this
To clarifiy, i still think its possible that Avery killed Theresa, but he DID NOT recieved a fair trial. And EVERYONE deserves a fair trial.
They were convicted on different crimes, Dassey was convicted of rape - SA was not. SA was convicted of killing her alone in a garage with a single gunshot. Dassey was convicted of killing her in the bedroom with SA using a knife and gun. SA was not convicted of dismembering a corpse yet Dassey was. It's a hot mess that demands a retrial. Two different methods could not have taken place. Two different locations could not have happened. The 'evidence' not shown in the documentary wasn't particularly compelling. No smoking guns. Clearly evidence was manufactured to point to SA. Even the jury was 7-2-3 not guilty at first. It's clear nothing is as it appears in this case. I personally think SA did do it but the DA failed to figured out the how, why, or where.
Those are great points and the two veredicts clearly contradict eachother and show what an utter mess of negligency and corruption all this case was from the beggining
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
