12

The question of whether they can ask these questions will be left to the trial judge. If the parties can make any kind of reasonable argument that consumers of one product or the other are likely to be partisans, the judge should allow the question, though it would not be error to refuse. For a good comparison, look at Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, ...


7

Based on these two sources: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryselect.html http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/reasons-for-rejecting-potential-jurors.html my understanding is that in an official sense there's nothing that's considered an invalid reason to challenge a ...


6

If you are directly asked a question, you might sit there silently or explicitly refuse to answer, and the judge may order you to answer (refusing the order would be contempt). A non-responsive answer when being individually examined by an attorney is to be corrected by re-asking the question, to get a complete answer. However, if the pool is asked a generic ...


5

Short Answer This account would be a fairly extreme outlier relative to normal practice in jury selection, but it is certainly something that could possibly happen (except for one small detail that isn't very relevant to the core issues that it raises; this detail is discussed below in the last heading of this answer). The substantive points made in the ...


4

It is the job of the judge to instruct the jury about the law. If Texas had pattern instructions I'd look up what the instruction is for this matter, but you don't, so I don't know what the judge would say. But it is the judge's sole prerogative to instruct the jury in the law. If the question is a "commitment question", then it is an improper question and ...


3

Yes, there are cases where refusing to respond to the question would be legal. The juror could plead the fifth – so long as he hasn't spilled the beans about what he is trying to protect – which provides for the protection from compelled self-incrimination (any incriminating statement that could be used against you in a criminal charge – civil liability ...


3

If a sitting juror, or a prospective juror during voir dire, cannot see or hear something clearly, what is the protocol for the juror to alert the court of this? Say something immediately? Raise your hand or number card? Write a note? Saying something immediately or raising your hand or number card are appropriate. Ideally, you get the attention of ...


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 new-south-wales as a generalization: [t]hat the proposed juror does not possess the necessary qualifications or that he ...


2

This is probably allowed, unless Texas has a 1 day or 1 case rule (which is common but hardly universal), in which case the potential juror could only be held for one day. A juror can be compelled to be a juror against his will in any case in which he is qualified to serve. Usually, the legal authority of a court to compel a person to serve as a juror is ...


2

Yes; in fact, these challenges are made, and happen, routinely. The phrase "jury nullification" is most often used by the extreme political right or extreme libertarians. But in fact all it means is a juror refusing to apply a law based on considerations other than the law he's instructed in by the judge. In those jurisdictions that still have capital ...


1

In Texas speeding is a class C misdemeanor and thus a criminal offense. Prior guilt should not be a factor in determining guilt in a trial. The prosecution would thus not present a copy of your driving record as evidence at the trial. I don't think that people who've been charged with speeding are excluded from the jury pool. Each side gets a chance to ...


1

This amusing site on the subject of jury nullification notes that, during voir dire, lawyers will ask about nullification, usually in the slightly roundabout way: "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?"


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible