Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,216 posts)

13. Ah; that would have been before the 1988 act

Reply to dipsydoodle (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 2, 2014, 12:58 PM

Feb 2014

I did jury duty in 2012; for a case in which victim and defendant were both police officers, they asked us if we knew anyone in that police force (the neighbouring county), but for 2 other cases, all they did was read out a list of expected witnesses and ask if we knew any of them. There was no "are you happy with these jurors" question to either barrister.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How A Ruling On Gay Jurors Could Have A Huge Effect On The Gay Rights Movement [View all] Tx4obama Feb 2014 OP

Something's missing here. I don't see how a higher priced medication from one company could hurt pinto Feb 2014 #1

I couldn't see that either. dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #3

Here's a little more info: Incitatus Feb 2014 #6

Ah, thanks for the info. Many HIV med regimes these days are combos from different companies. pinto Feb 2014 #7

Do I take it that lawyers in the US need to give reasons when they select a jury ? dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #2

They need a reason to challenge a juror. NYC Liberal Feb 2014 #4

They get some set number of dismissals on jury selection subject to appeal and review. pinto Feb 2014 #5

I don't think an English lawyer would be able to object to a juror without reason muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #11

I only mentioned that dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #12

Ah; that would have been before the 1988 act muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #13

the irony is that if the lawyer hadn't said it was because the juror was gay dsc Feb 2014 #8

K&R! countryjake Feb 2014 #9

Link to decision...the district court judge ought to be ashamed of herself. Abbot's attorneys ought msanthrope Feb 2014 #10