CHL Question during Jury Selection

[kragluver]

I was sitting on a jury panel early this year prior to taking my CHL class. The case was a felony in possession of a firearm case. During voi dire (sp?), the defense attorney asked those of us on the jury panel who were NRA members to raise our hands. I did along with several others on the panel. Then he asked how many were CHL holders. One lady kept her hand raised.

Now that I've taken the class, and after reading many of the posts on this forum over the past couple of months, I'd think that a voi dire question in a court room as to who was a CHL holder does not need to be answered. I'm thinking its one of those questions you can choose to answer if you want to, but are not required, correct? Am I off-base here? My understanding is that only other law enforcement agencies can access CHL holder information from DPS. A defense attorney (or the prosection for that matter) shouldn't have the authority to require you to answer such a question outright. Am I right or wrong on this? Any attorneys on the forum like to chime in?

[C-dub]

I dunno. The person asking is an officer of the court. In a crowd like that, I don't like it much, but I think we'd have to answer truthfully.

[seamusTX]

It's voir dire.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 35.02. SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. To those present the court shall cause to be administered this oath: "You, and each of you, solemnly swear that you will make true answers to such questions as may be propounded to you by the court, or under its directions, touching your service and qualifications as a juror, so help you God."

Any further questions?

- Jim

[boomerang]

I always thought it was nonsense that a potential juror has less rights than the accused when it comes to the right to remain silent.

[seamusTX]

Think whatever you like.

The U.S. Constitution, and common law for a thousand years before, are what they are.

- Jim

[PappaGun]

IANAL, but it seems that if one did not answer truthfully and that was later discovered, you could cause a mistrial in the right (or wrong) case.

[boomerang]

You have the right to remain silent, unless it's inconvenient for the government.

[seamusTX]

You have the right not to give testimony that incriminates yourself. It is not an offense to be a member of the NRA or have a CHL.

I guess if they asked in voir dire whether you smoked dope or beat your wife, you could decline to answer. It would be an interesting question of constitutional law if I were a law professor.

- Jim

[ELB]

Not answering any voir-dire question truthfully can lead to serious trouble. Aside from the possibility of mistrial if you are found out, you swore to tell the truth, and if you do not you can be prosecuted. It would not surprise me that if you are balky in court during voir dire that the judge would not only dismiss you but stick in jail for contempt for awhile.

I don't see any conflict between the CHL law and the laws regarding jury voir-dire. I highly recommend you follow both.

[dac1842]

Gee, I never made it that far in voir doir, They usually ask something about predetermined thoughts as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and I always answer " If he wasnt guilty of something he would not be here and neither would I!" They usually cant get me out of the court room fast enough!

[kragluver]

Good thoughts, all. If I had a CHL at the time of this jury selection, I would have raised my hand. I have nothing to hide. I was just curious, that's all.

[Keith B]

You have the right not to give testimony that incriminates yourself. It is not an offense to be a member of the NRA or have a CHL.

I guess if they asked in voir dire whether you smoked dope or beat your wife, you could decline to answer. It would be an interesting question of constitutional law if I were a law professor.

- Jim

What if they ask the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' How do you answer that one??

As Jim said, you are sworn in at the Voir Dire and must answer truthfully.

The last time I was in Voir Dire when I answered back to back questions about reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the Judge immediately asked if I had a LE background (I do.) That knocked me out with the prosecution pretty quick because it was a 'no refusal' blood draw DWI case and there is a discrepancy in the statutes that I probably would have pointed out. The defense attorney worked on me pretty hard trying to get me to say that I wouldn't side with the LEO if I had no convincing evidence he was wrong in his arrest. Needless to say I was not chosen.

[seamusTX]

The last time I was in voir dire, I got knocked out by demonstrating that I knew more about constitutional law than a newborn kitten. Probably the prosecutors exclude on this basis.

Anyone who thinks a jury will be intelligent, educated, and reasonable has to understand that all the smart people have been excluded. Someone said the O.J. Simpson criminal trial jury had the collective IQ of a rack of pool balls (which did work for him).

- Jim

[dac1842]

Thanks Jim, Now I know why I have never made it to the jury. All this time I thought it was because they did not want ex cops up there!

[lonewolf]

I have nothing to hide, I'll answer honestly. I'm good with that.

The attorneys are always going to try to get a jury that appears it might be favorable to their cause. If it makes them happy to think that people with reverse Mohawk haircuts would be more likely to be supportive, they can visually scan for it. If its a white collar type thing, they might look for calloused hands with greasy fingernails. The prosecution would want those guys, the defense might not. There are companies that make a heck of a lot of money consulting with attorneys regarding jury selection.

They might not want a guy like me, laid off twice in the last 18 months to be on a jury in a mortgage fraud case, for example...........