Excused by peremptory challenge

[sierra_nevada]

I got there about 20 minutes late, so I caught the tail end of the jury orientation in the assembly room; I don't think I missed much. Upstairs we all walked, into the gallery of a court room. Names were drawn at random for an initial jury pool, and I was among them. I had a couple of issues of The Economist on my lap (I'm behind in reading them).

Comments

[anonymous]

I have been told that neither side wants anyone who knows too much, lest they bring in their actual expertise rather than the limited menu of info the attorneys want to share with them. Did they ask you if you thought any of your experience would prevent you from evaluating the evidence fairly?

[sierra_nevada]

That was the entire point of the questioning. I told them that I believed I could evaluate the case fairly, repeatedly.

The suspicion is that one side or the other didn't want jurors who might be able to call bullshit on something they present in their case that directly contradicts experience with contracts, corporate governance, business, investment risk, the military, etc.

[cat_herder]

The lawyers don't want you to sway the jury. That's their job.

[ala_too]

I'm surprised you weren't there for the selection. When I was on a jury, we saw the entire process.

The lawyers don't seem to get very many challenges for no cause. Being a different state, your system may vary.