Jury Selection

There was a tweet in my Twitter round-up yesterday that said,

Each time I've been called for jury duty here in Manhattan, defense inevitably gets to "Do you think that the police always tell the truth?" and each time I've honestly answered "No," and so the last time I was on a jury was 1985.
Jack Womack

I had already read that tweet when I came across this thread from an East Oregon defense attorney later in the month:

Since we're going off about lying cops today, let me add to it stupid things prosecutors train baby DAs to do. Here I present training materials that define inquisitive people that care about the process as bad jurors. Literally.






I particularly like that being "overly conscientious" makes you a "bad" jury. And that they don't want people that pay attention to process, but then tell you that form is every bit as important as the actual substance of your case against a person.

It was at this DOJ-presented training where an experienced DDA trainer from the Bend area kept talking about a car wreck that had a bunch of tweakers and was thankfully "NHI" when all but one person died.

I finally asked what NHI meant: No Humans Involved.

So, someone asked about what good jurors are. Apparently, middle aged and middle class or blue collar.




This is from a training I attended as a prosecutor. It was really telling me how to pick juries. They didn't need to have racially neutral excuses because getting rid of the ones they suggested would have the same effect.

But they also really believed this.

The obvious bias toward male and white jurors is clear in all of this, of course, especially in the "good" attributes, without even getting into who's more likely to distrust cops or be selected out for cause as in this example:


But getting back to the original point of the post, which was about cops lying and its connection to jury selection. (Several people in the comments gave examples of being removed from the pool because of their opinions on whether cops always tell the truth or not.) Today, KPCC reporter Josie Huang reminded me of these related facts:

In initial police statements...
- Breonna Taylor’s injuries were listed as “none”
- No mention of officer kneeling on George Floyd’s neck
- Older Buffalo protester shoved to ground had “tripped & fell"

She linked to a Washington Post story with this headline: "Journalists are reexamining their reliance on a longtime source: The police."

If journalists are reexamining their reliance and belief in the truth-telling of police, how can jury members — who lock people up because they're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — still be selected based on whether they believe the words of people who have been proven to lie systematically? 

___

Afternote: I learned this fact from one of the other commenters in the main Twitter thread cited here:

In the UK the jury is randomly selected and only dismissed if they have a connection to the case.