1

In the near future, a motorist who allegedly ran down and killed a cyclist will be going on trial for the offense.

Will the defense be allowed to (a) ask prospective jurors if they are cyclists, and (b) will any potential jurors who answer "yes" be excused from jury service?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Who are cyclists? People who can ride a bicycle? Who ride every day? Once a week?. Also, how about excluding motorists as well?
    – Greendrake
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 4:45
  • 1
    Interesting question. If the answer is "yes", would the prosecution also be allowed to exclude car drivers? And who would be on the jury then?
    – sleske
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 12:22

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It depends where you are

Strike for Cause

In jurisdictions where you can strike for cause the judge would hold a trial to determine if this was a sufficient cause to exclude the juror. The specifics differ by jurisdiction but taking as a generalization:

[t]hat the proposed juror does not possess the necessary qualifications or that he has some personal defects which render him incapable of discharging his duty as a juror or that he is not impartial or that he has served on another jury in respect of the same matter or that he has been convicted for an infamous crime.

Peremptory Challenges

In many jurisdictions (not ) each side may have the right to a limited number of challanges without cause. For example, in , that number in criminal trials is 3 (plus 1 if more than 12 jurors will be empaneled - this is often done to provide"spares" in long trials).

To exclude all cyclists you would have to convince the judge that all cyclists are biased - not an easy task

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    I'll note that they often ask potential jurors questions like "do you or have you worked in [industry related to case]" and even if you answer in the affirmative, you are not automatically excused.
    – pboss3010
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 11:53
  • "the judge would hold a trial to determine if this was a sufficient cause to exclude the juror" Hearing maybe, not trial.
    – Acccumulation
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 15:56
  • @Acccumulation the term here is trial (within a trial)
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 20:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .