Selection off a Jury. Are there any posts on this subject? The question would be two Jury members knew the defendant before being selected to the Jury. Is it possible to get a new trial that the above members knew the defendant, and there lawyer aloud them to stay. The verdict was guilty.

A friend asked if I could find anything on this subject.

I believe this may be in the legal section thread part off the forum. I will look there for my post get moved.

That a defense attorney did not exercise a peremptory challenge to a potential juror is not an issue upon which any verdict has ever been successfully appealed.

In every case that i have tried, the question as to whether the jurors know any of the parties has always been asked. If it was, and the individuals failed to disclose this, there might be grounds for an appeal. If they did disclose their knowledge and the defense attorney failed to get rid of them with a preemptory challenge there might be an ineffective assistance of counsel argument that could be made, IF the attorney was on notice about the juriors knowledge of the defendant and the defendent had asked for them to be removed and the attorney failed to act accordingly.

I know with Jury selection in the US they have guidelines requirements. If any jury member after the fact was investigated and found not eligible to be on a Jury would this be ground for a new trial?

In my opinion I would never go to trial with a Jury, unless I had the jury in the bag before the trial started. $ There is a reason certain lawyers having winning records, and it is not because they are good at presenting a defense. These are my opinions, and they have kept me out off prison.

Lawyers are not going to go into the level off defense or battle off discussion with you unless instructed. A jury is Russian roulette, and I will not play unless I know what chamber has the bullet.

At the end off the day remember everyone go homes. The question is do you?

I know this thread is about Jury selection, but it get pathetic that laws are designed to convict a person on basically mere presence will get you 40 years. If you what a fair trial you have to look below the playing field like the State does. The State can make deals with basically anyone. I call it lying to save their skin from prison time, but testify to their knowledge off the crime or the person. If they can do this better start thinking lawyers are like boxers they get paid the same at the end off the game.

I find that totally wierd that it wasn't questioned. When I was called for Jury duty, it was the DA who asked me if I knew the defendant. And since I did, due to him being arrested in my shipping facility a year earlier on an unrelated charge, I was dismissed.

__________________

I agree that the question is asked in almost all trials. But, the fact that a juror might know a defendant is no more grounds for disqualification than is the case in which a potential juror claims to know of the defendant ... period.

Having worked the post-conviction field for many years I can say that rare is the appelate decision reversing a juror-related case resulting in conviction on any issue other than a Batson claim. And I can further say that in the many years I have been researching arguments for appeal, NEVER have I run across a case in which conviction was reversed based on a juror's admission to knowing or knowing of the defendant.

Please re-read my previous post; I never said a conviction might not one day be reversed on this issue. Instead I said that to date none have.

The Jury deliberation. I would like to know based on what evidence did they fine the defendant guilty, was it their passed knowledge, and history off the defendant. I believe in my opinion that the deliberation is not transcripted for one, and cannot be reviewed for incompetent decisions, predigest decisions, or verdict based perhaps on nothing valid. How would you know how they came to there decision off Guilty? The process is too simple while dealing with peoples lives in this system.

With this fact incombanation off the law of parties. A murder takes place, but it was never proved the defendant killed anyone gets 40 years based on an admission off agreeing to participate in a planed felony under the law. I know this is the law, and a crazy one designed to fill prisons, and death row prison cells with citizens living anywhere else most likely would not even see a jail cell.

With the Jury basically covered as an possible defense for an appeal, and believe me I am not saying Judge alone would be better based on some resent decision made by these educated adults in power that would in a reasonable person definition would be boarder line insanity.

My argument would be and always is 40 years sentence for a murder that was not proved you committed, but an admission through police interrogation agreeing to rob a person, and witness corroboration the story is there evidence that witness could be charged with the same crime if she never cooperated to testify. The sentence is too incisive for the crime. I personally amazed that people are not appealing these sentences based on cruel punishment. These 40 years sentences, and there was the one case a citizen from Canada the lady got convicted off possession off drugs in New Jersey, and got 40 years. These sentences are a flat 40 years there are no time reductions. In Canada the possession conviction would have got you 2 years with good time. What is the point off this sentence? This was a mother off three children, and has never been convicted off anything in her life. My pp I believe in my opinion would not have been charged with anything, but most defently would not be convicted off murdering anyone gets 40 years.

With no time reduction on a 40-year sentence, and no funds to appeal, what hope do these people have?

I am saying the sentences in the US are getting out off control, and with little amount off evidence to prove theses case. An admission is nothing, everyone knows about false confession, and admissions, and without the confession to this day who knows if it was valid. It self-incrimination evidence, easy lazy police work that is accept as valid, and true because the accused said it. It is not a deterrent for crime, but a lethal weapon to help convict a possible innocent citizen based on wordings off laws, and ordinary citizen deliberation.

My pp lawyer got paid, and if he was not so incompetent. I would say he took a buyout from the victim’s family to just sit there look educated, and say nothing.