TexasCHLforum.com

They have provisions for people who are not Christians or whose beliefs prohibit them from taking oaths. I don't know the details.

Usually they replace swear with affirm and leave out "so help me God."

I don't make the rules. I don't have to like the rules.

- Jim

mgood wrote:Interesting to note how many people there knew each other.
In a small town, you're just not going to get a courtroom full of people who don't know each other.

That would have been the situation for 90% of the time that the common-law jury system has been in existence. There were only a few big cities where people were anonymous until around 1900 (London, New York, Philadelphia).

- Jim

I think car ownership is an unreliable means of drawing conclusions. Obviously there are some general trends. However, my wife and I have bought three Fords and three Hondas in the past 14 years, while our education level, income, and attitudes about life have not changed much.

(In case you're wondering, we lost three cars in floods, one was wrecked, and one was scrapped with almost 200,000 miles on it.)

- Jim

Interesting. I wonder how much her legal bills amounted to?

Here's some more detail on that case:

During preparations for a murder case in the 211th Judicial District Court of Texas, Dianna Brandborg was given a questionnaire that had been approved by attorneys for both sides. It contained nearly 110 questions, and Brandborg thought that 14 of them were too personal. The contested questions dealt with her religion, income, political orientation, automobile, and favorite television programs.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Federal,+ ... a017746232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Automobile? Are people who drive a Toyota likely to have different prejudices from people who drive a Chevy?

- Jim

KD5NRH wrote:It becomes problematic on a yes-or-no question, though. Would anybody other than a CHL approach the bench in the OP's situation?

Sure, if some good old boy didn't want it known that he had wimped out.

This is a non-issue. In most counties, you will be in a room with 50 or so strangers who will not remember your name or anything else that you say. What could they do with any personal information?

I was on a jury with 11 other people for 10 days. We deliberated for two days. Think about what that means (as in Twelve Angry Men). I never saw or heard of them again. I couldn't have told a single one of their names a month later.

(I do remember some of their personalities, and some of the telling points that they made. That was around 1985 -- I don't even remember the year precisely.)

- Jim

The last time I was "excused" was on a criminal case. The defense attorney asked the panel if anyone knew what an indictment meant. As you can guess, I answered. Then he asked some questions about the presumption of innocence which I also answered. Obviously the prosecutor bumped me.

A lady I knew was on the jury. She told me later that the guy was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they sentenced him to 20 years for shooting his "girlfriend."

- Jim

Good to see you back, Jim. I hope things are getting to the "new normal."

KD5NRH wrote:Isn't there some process for jury selection questions that aren't appropriate to answer in front of everybody?

I don't know.

Most of the questions are either routine things like your name, address, profession, employer, and so forth, or matters of public record like arrests and convictions.

If the case concerned some sexual offense, I can see where the questions would get touchy. I don't know how they handle that.

The defendant, personally, has a right to know that he is getting an unbiased jury. There have been cases where the jurors' personal information has been kept secret because of the possibility of retaliation. I don't know what legal maneuvers allow that to be done.

- Jim

Purplehood wrote:My own experience of jury-selection is simply waiting for the lawyer to ask, "please raise your hands if you have ever been in jail".

I don't know why having been arrested would be a disqualification. I've been picked for juries twice after answering on the questionnaire that I had been arrested and not convicted.

I think they used to be pickier than they are now. It used to be that anyone who had any connection at all with the legal system was dismissed. Now judges are sometimes called to serve on juries, and as everyone knows, Gov. George W. Bush was also.

- Jim

Unless you're the defendant.

The phrase "jury of your peers" is not a element of American law. It meant that a British commoner would be tried by a jury of commoners, not aristocrats, or vice versa. We don't have that class division.

The jury system has pretty much been gutted in the U.K., in any case.

- Jim

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

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

Think whatever you like.

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

- Jim

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