• UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    People seem to think that a prior opinion about the dependent automatically means that a potential juror cannot be impartial. All that is required is that the juror can render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Plenty of people with strong opinions about Trump himself can still be impartial jurors.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yup. And those 10 strikes are for exactly that. If you can’t prove a juror will be biased but suspect they will be, then you can use one of your 10 strikes to exclude them. But you have an unlimited amount of “for cause” strikes, where the juror has admitted that they wouldn’t be able to stay impartial.

    • ArbitraryValue
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not sure that’s true. Even a person with a great deal of integrity and respect for the law is going to be biased subconsciously to some extent by the knowledge that this case may change the outcome of a particularly important presidential election. A person whose respect for the law is less than absolute may even consider affecting the outcome of the election to be a moral obligation.