When I first read Gideon’s post at A Public Defender, it had the wrong smell, the wrong feel. It was an awful story, about how a judge refused to remove a juror in a child rape case who made it as clear as possible that she was biased. The point of the story was the efforts put in to create the appearance of rehabilitation.
The prosecutor then asked the juror: “You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?” Juror 112 responded, “I would have to vote guilty.
The judge asked if she could return a verdict of not guilty if the government couldn’t prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I don’t think I would be able to,” the juror replied.
The prosecutor tried again: “Let me ask you this flat-out. Let’s say the victim takes the stand [and] you flat-out don’t believe her. In fact, you think she’s lying. You look at her [and conclude] ‘I don’t believe a word coming out of her mouth.’ Are you going to convict this man anyway?”
Juror 112 responded before the first witness in the case had been called, “That depends. I still feel he was at fault.” Continue reading
