Replies

To the extent that the jury system needs revamping, it is in the direction of giving juries greater leeway to even override unjust laws (i.e. jury nullification), if necessary, not making juries more subservient to judges and prosecutors.

The best way to revamp the jury system would be to disallow removal of a juror without a direct statement of cause. Conflict of interest can't be allowed on the jury. But that is a demonstrable cause for dismissal. Anything short of that and the jury selection should be random, no exceptions.

Second, no or limited continuances. Once the jury is seated the trial moves forward. No breaks, no holidays, no CNN interviews and no golf games for the lawyers. If a trial goes more than one day the prosecutors and lawyers get to sleep in bunk beds in a back room of the court house. Just watch how few year long trials you see when the billion dollar lawyers have to give up their pampered poodle lives while the trial is in process.

"The best way to revamp the jury system would be to disallow removal of a juror without a direct statement of cause. "
Now, this is the most intellegent statement I have read today ( except for tax chicks opening line on this thread, bravo ) there is an entire industry based upon jury selection...I was called for federal jury service years ago...the case was young boys, inc....over 400 of us went into a court room. after the jury was seated, there were only 14 of us left in the room that had not been called up and eliminated. They had eliminated over 374 jurors....

The jury selection process has gotten out of hand with firms that specialize is getting just the ‘right’ jurors for any particular trial. They psychoanalyze and pick and probe and make a mockery of ‘jury of your peers’. Better to take the first 12 people who are breathing, impanel them and proceed to trial.