The R Kelly jury selection reminds me of Steve Bannon last month; it was impossible to find DC jurors who hadn’t heard of him at all, which is what the defense wanted. One of the dismissed jurors was a political reporter!
American law-naïve Canadian here, but do trials in the US _have_ to be jury trials or can the defendant opt for a judge trial like they can do here? I'd assume in this case that R. Kelly would have chosen a judge trial if he could.
(Also, I'm pretty sure that first bit requires a hyphen, but I'm only 50% sure that I put it in the right place.)
The part about needing female bodyguards to go into fitting rooms and the like reminds me of that part in McMillions where they reveal that Uncle Jerry used to slip his female partner's guard by using the restroom and swapping out the winning pieces in the stall. Also, I kind of love that screenplay idea. Get the screenwriter of Hustlers on that, stat!
In Australia, we don't this voir dire/20 pages of busybody questions business, they just ask you if you have any personal connections to anyone involved and if you feel you can be impartial and you're on. In 2017, I was very almost picked for a murder trial of a man very (in)famous in Sydney (Roger Rogerson) about whom several TV series have been made and whohad made the front pages for everything he's done for decades. I didn't get picked but I made it to "the final round" of random number draws so I saw the whole process. There is no voir dire but either side have a certain number of challenges they can make without giving reasons. The only personal challenged was a younger Asian guy, by Rogerson himself. The only reason I can think of for that was that the victim was also a younger Asian guy. (RR and his coaccused were found guilty, given there was CCTV of three people going into a storage unit and only two coming out carrying a suspiciously human shaped surfboard bag they couldn't really deny the death and the claims of self-defence do not fly with anyone) So, on one hand I think its preferable the system doesn't weed you out just because you pay enough attention to have opinions on things, but on the other straight up racial profiling is hardly ideal. But on balance and IANAL, I think I prefer just trusting citizens to do their job. I mean, you are trusting them with major decisions that affect many lives, why not trust them to be impartial when they say they can even if they might possess opinions like a normal person?
The R Kelly jury selection reminds me of Steve Bannon last month; it was impossible to find DC jurors who hadn’t heard of him at all, which is what the defense wanted. One of the dismissed jurors was a political reporter!
American law-naïve Canadian here, but do trials in the US _have_ to be jury trials or can the defendant opt for a judge trial like they can do here? I'd assume in this case that R. Kelly would have chosen a judge trial if he could.
(Also, I'm pretty sure that first bit requires a hyphen, but I'm only 50% sure that I put it in the right place.)
The part about needing female bodyguards to go into fitting rooms and the like reminds me of that part in McMillions where they reveal that Uncle Jerry used to slip his female partner's guard by using the restroom and swapping out the winning pieces in the stall. Also, I kind of love that screenplay idea. Get the screenwriter of Hustlers on that, stat!
I’m up for jury duty in Cook County, IL…y’all best not give me R Kelly. I have a job as a therapist & do not need that insanity…please, no. Please.
In Australia, we don't this voir dire/20 pages of busybody questions business, they just ask you if you have any personal connections to anyone involved and if you feel you can be impartial and you're on. In 2017, I was very almost picked for a murder trial of a man very (in)famous in Sydney (Roger Rogerson) about whom several TV series have been made and whohad made the front pages for everything he's done for decades. I didn't get picked but I made it to "the final round" of random number draws so I saw the whole process. There is no voir dire but either side have a certain number of challenges they can make without giving reasons. The only personal challenged was a younger Asian guy, by Rogerson himself. The only reason I can think of for that was that the victim was also a younger Asian guy. (RR and his coaccused were found guilty, given there was CCTV of three people going into a storage unit and only two coming out carrying a suspiciously human shaped surfboard bag they couldn't really deny the death and the claims of self-defence do not fly with anyone) So, on one hand I think its preferable the system doesn't weed you out just because you pay enough attention to have opinions on things, but on the other straight up racial profiling is hardly ideal. But on balance and IANAL, I think I prefer just trusting citizens to do their job. I mean, you are trusting them with major decisions that affect many lives, why not trust them to be impartial when they say they can even if they might possess opinions like a normal person?