“In a typical courtroom, the Judge will order from between 20 to 50 potential jurors to sit in the audience and go through the voir dire process. ...After the questions are done, the group of prospective jurors is asked to leave the room and the lawyers decide who will be on the jury. Each lawyer gets a number of peremptory strikes.
The lawyers are allowed to strike as many jury members as they can if they qualify as a “for cause” strike. A “for cause” challenge is where the jury member simply can’t sit on the jury and promise to be fair (i.e. biased, or can’t concentrate, medical problems, doesn’t understand the language, etc.).”
So if 45 out of 50 are hardcore liberal democrats, who swear they can be unbiased, you’ll get 5 reasonable people and the least bad of 7 votes to convict.
Sorry to spam, but I just saw this request from the jury: “We’d like to better understand the term ‘reasonable person.’ Can the judge elaborate?”
Oh man...THAT IS WHAT THE JURY HAS BEEN TASKED TO ANSWER. That’s the question: were Penny’s actions REASONABLE under the totality of the circumstances known to him at the time? If his actions were REASONABLE, then he by definition did not exhibit reckless disregard required for the manslaughter charge.
The instinct these people have to defer to the state power is chilling.
You cannot trust a blue city jury.