If the juror has an experience in his life that would make him biased toward one side or the other and therefore less likely to make an unbiased verdict
The 8th juror displayed a thoughtful and reflective attitude toward being a juror. He took his responsibility seriously, valuing the importance of justice and the need for thorough deliberation. Rather than rushing to a consensus, he advocated for careful consideration of the evidence, demonstrating a commitment to fairness and the principle of reasonable doubt. His willingness to challenge the majority opinion highlighted his belief in the integrity of the judicial process.
Yes, if one is an alternate juror, meaning a juror who is there to fill in if one of the 12 jurors cannot complete their jury service.
Polling the jury is a process that can occur after a jury has returned a verdict, to verify that the result read in court was the decision actually reached by the jurors, either unanimously or by majority vote. Either the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney can request that the jury be polled. The process involves the judge asking each individual juror if they are in agreement with the verdict.
Individuals can shape the local, state and federal government by casting their vote, going to town hall meetings that elected officials hold, signing a petition, serving as a juror, serving through the Armed Forces, holding their elected officials up to scrutiny, or protesting through boycotts, sit-ins or marching. These are only some of the ways that a citizen can participate in the governmental process.
Professor, actor, doctor Tutor, Aviator, Chiropractor, Mediator, Animator, Juror, Contractor, Warrior, Decorator, Collector, Monitor, Vendor, Realtor, Director, Sailor, Assessor, Tenor, Matador, Educator, Operator
As no trial has begun a mistrial cannot be called. It would be up to the prosecutor, Defence or Judge to decide whether or not to excuse the potential juror. But as you have used the word 'potential' I'm not certain whether both sides, as well as the judge, have accepted the 'potential' juror anyway. Consequently, the entire scenario is most probably moot in this instance. However, thinking a bit outside of 'the box' if this 'potential' juror was heard to have said this outside of the courtroom, prior to the jury selection process, it would be most wise to advise the defence attorney of what has been overheard so the point may be raised during the selection process.
Yes, if a juror has a prior commitment or obligation that conflicts with serving on the jury, they may be excused by the judge. Jurors are encouraged to communicate any scheduling conflicts or hardships to the court during the selection process.
No, they should not be able to do so. This is information that is specifically asked of every juror when they undergo Voire Dire prior to the jury selection process. Prospective jurors in such a situation are excused and dismissed from jury duty.
A prospective juror is an individual who is summoned to potentially serve on a jury in a legal proceeding. During the jury selection process, they are questioned by the judge and attorneys to determine their suitability for the case based on various factors, including biases or preconceived notions. If selected, they will participate in the trial, weighing evidence and helping to reach a verdict. If not selected, they are typically dismissed from further involvement in that particular case.
Yes, there are several reasons someone might not be able to serve as a juror, including financial hardship, medical issues, prior commitments, or potential biases related to the case. Additionally, some individuals may have legal disqualifications, such as felony convictions or being a witness in the case. It's important to communicate any valid concerns during the jury selection process.
There is a juror selection of some sort.
No, that just jury SELECTION; it's legal. Jury TAMPERING involves trying to influence a juror after she/he has been selected.
The two types of challenges in the jury selection process are challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause are based on specific reasons why a juror may be biased or unable to be impartial. Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to dismiss a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason.
Juror #9, later identified as McArdle was the oldest juror.
A challenge for cause is a legal procedure used during jury selection to disqualify a potential juror based on specific biases or inability to serve impartially. Unlike a peremptory challenge, which allows a party to dismiss a juror without stating a reason, a challenge for cause requires the party to provide a valid justification, such as a conflict of interest or a preconceived opinion about the case. The judge ultimately decides whether to grant the challenge. This process ensures that the jury remains fair and unbiased.
That is entirely up to the judgement of the judge presdiing at the jury selection process. NO ONE will be excused prior to undergoing this process. If you have a compelling reason to present to the judge, you MIGHT be excused from jury duty. No pleas to the Clerk of Court or ANY OTHER person or office will suffice.
A venireman is a member of a jury pool, specifically summoned for potential jury duty in a legal case. During the jury selection process, veniremen are questioned by attorneys and the judge to determine their suitability to serve on a particular trial. The term is often used interchangeably with "juror" or "jury candidate." Veniremen play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and impartial jury.