[Quila]

This jury selection process seriously has to change. It's "jury of peers" not "carefully presecreened to get a verdict before the trial jury of peers."

It should be cut back to only a few questions that only the judge can ask. "Do you have any relationship with any party involved in this case?" "Do you have any personal interest in this case?" "Do you have any preconceived ideas of guilt in this case?" are about all I can think of that are appropriate, and a yes answer isn't necessarily a reason for exclusion.

You have the right to take the Fifth, but not if you are a juror.

[David]

"This jury selection process seriously has to change. It's "jury of peers" not "carefully presecreened to get a verdict before the trial jury of peers." It should be cut back to only a few questions that only the judge can ask. "Do you have any relationship with any party involved in this case?" "Do you have any personal interest in this case?" "Do you have any preconceived ideas of guilt in this case?" are about all I can think of that are appropriate, and a yes answer isn't necessarily a reason for exclusion."

In this kind of case that might be reasonable. But in many, if not most cases, its not. The lady who starts with her handwringing about not wanting to hurt anybody's feelings ought not be on a jury.

Although I do not blame the situation on the jury selection process, we convict way too many people who are innocent. Whatever the rules; whatever the judge's instructions; the strong presumption is that any defendant who is charged is guilty--that is wrong.