Well, the idea is to get jurors with no preconceived notions about the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, this does often translate into jurors with no ideas at all in their heads. Lawyers and judges have a tendency to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room, and this bias shows in jury selection. It looks like the prosecution was too smart for its own good in this case.
(It's also a good reason to vote for businessmen rather than lawyers, given a choice.)
Which begs to be answered just how they can rightly determine if or not a juror has preconceived notions, let alone an ability to comprehend the seriousness of the task at hand...and how to arrive at a conclusion.
It doesn't appear to me they had a sense of these nor the ability to arrive at a fair conclusion. Two of the jurors specifically stated judgment of Casey was up to God and not to man, and yet they were selected...who certainly would not have likely given a judgment of guilty though a not guilty vote still would have been a judgment call on their part. But the jury then began deliberations with two already determined they would not vote for a death penalty.
Lawyers and judges have a tendency to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room, and this bias shows in jury selection
- - - - -
So, is that why I made the defense atty cry that one time? He realized he may not have been the smartest person there?