The ethical thing to do here, if asked whether you will treat the word of a law enforcement officer as always true, is to lie.
It's along the lines of jury nullification. The people have some recourse in overriding court rules and court rulings when the court is not behaving in accordance with justice.
You don't need to lie, but you need to be careful not to frame your realistic skepticism as bias. Then, if you do make the jury, you need to be incredibly tactful so that the prosecutor doesn't get the trial thrown out on the basis that, e.g., you're biased simply because you don't take police testimonies as ground truth.
The risk here is that there are people fighting to get out of prison for things they're not guilty of. If you have realistic expectations that police and their representative prosecutors can and do lie, please exercise caution.
Exactly. Saying "I will evaluate the officer's statements along with the other evidence produced to determine if his/her statements are factual" is not going to get you kicked off a jury.
If you say "You shouldn't believe anything a cop testifies to" will get you booted pretty quickly.
> Saying "I will evaluate the officer's statements along with the other evidence produced to determine if his/her statements are factual" is not going to get you kicked off a jury.
If you say this you won't be selected. Engineers and Scientists routinely get denied because of the application of logic.
>Saying "I will evaluate the officer's statements along with the other evidence produced to determine if his/her statements are factual" is not going to get you kicked off a jury.
You'd be surprised. The DAs/lawyers on the other side can see right through this, and don't want it. They want someone that is more likely to show blind trust to the law side.
I got to jury selection last time I was on jury duty and the prosecuting attorney straight up asked the prospective jurors, "would you believe the testimony of a policeman above the testimony of the plaintiff?"
The majority of cases are settled by plea bargains, which don’t have a jury and minimal involvement by a judge. Many proposed reforms of the criminal justice system try to address this exact fact.
Having been through voir dire, sat on a jury and been asked to hold the power to take a man's freedom, I don't consider it ethical to lie during voir dire. The whole premise of the trial is that the jury is impartial. To knowingly lie is to deliberately corrupt that. I wouldn't want to be tried by jurors that were wilfully dishonest; I cannot then in good conscience lie, or countenance my fellow jurors lying, imagined purity of motive be damned.
"The whole premise of the trial is that the jury is impartial."
There's no such thing as impartial. Unless you either have no emotions or have omniscient knowledge of everything (robot or God, basically), you'll always view a set of facts through an emotional lens that's been tinged by your past experiences, which are a tiny subset of everyone's past experiences. Part of the reason we put multiple people on a jury is to average out those differences.
Then again, I brought up unconscious bias and implicit association tests last time I was called for jury duty, and was excused by a very impatient and skeptical sounding judge. Questioning the whole premise of the legal system doesn't go over very well with the legal system.
It's meant to be impartial /to the accused/. It's not meant to be completely agnostic of the whole judicial system, and in some cases doing the right thing may require not fully disclosing your knowledge of that judicial system. Example: Potential jurors will be dismissed (or at least, so I've read) if they admit to knowledge of jury nullification, despite it being a legitimate part of the jury's powers.
It is a part of the jury's power, but more as a side-effect of other decisions.
The criminal justice system _does not think_ jury nullification is a legitimate use of the powers of a juror. Rather, the criminal justice system more views it as something of an unfortunate trade-off.
Juries (And indirectly, the Supreme Court) are the only part of the criminal justice system in the US Constitution. Juries are the core of the system. Everything else is minor details.
The Constitution and centuries of common law tradition thinks it is a legitimate use of the powers of a juror. Since those are the ultimate source of law in this country, the criminal justice system is wrong.
Someone who has been selected for the belief that police are more reliable that others is clearly not impartial. It's right in the dictionary definition of the word impartial: "treating or affecting all equally".
I have very worried feelings about anyone who can answer "yes" to a question like "will you treat the word of X as always true?", regardless of the value of X.
The bare minimum I'd need would be "yes, so long as they're not contradicted by less inherently unreliable evidence than that which relies on human memory".
In my experience, the defense asked specific questions related to this exact topic and sought out jurors who agreed that police testimony is not guaranteed to be factual. I have to assume this is common. They had no problem filling the juror box with jurors approved by both sides.
The ethical thing to do here, if asked whether you will treat the word of a law enforcement officer as always true, is to lie.
That question came up the last time I was called for jury duty. But it was the people who affirmed that they believe police are always truthful who were excluded.
Just say "yes, provided that they aren't contradicted by more reliable evidence". The only thing you left out is that your definition of "more reliable evidence" is very broad.
No, jurors have to swear to tell the truth when answering questions during jury selection. However, in practice if you express any reservations about police testimony you will very likely be struck from the jury by the DA.
My own limited experience on a jury is that, because of the way jurors are selected, they tend to be fairly deferential to authority (especially the judge's authority). Arguing for jury nullification or any similar concept is at a minimum going to freak your fellow jurors out, and I wouldn't be surprised if in practice they might ask the judge to kick you off the jury and use one of the alternates (regardless of whatever the legality of the situation calls for).
> However, in practice if you express any reservations about police testimony you will very likely be struck from the jury by the DA
That's not my experience, and mere reservations about the credibility of police wouldn't usually justify a challenge for cause, and prosecutors have a finite number of peremptory challenges. (Now if you say cops are all liars and everything they say must be disregarded, sure, that’ll probably get you tossed.)
As far as i understand it a jury is supposed to be composed of one's "peers", but the people the parent describes strike me as way off the american norm.
That is not the meaning of the word peer in this case. The concept of a jury of peers differs from the King being the jury. It refers to citizens as peers not people with red hair, the same skin color, or socioeconomic background as peers.
Jurors are asked if they will treat the word of law enforcement as always true.
Jurors are disqualified if they don't say yes.
Jurors are sworn, as you say, to tell the truth.
Presumable jurors get punished if they end up acting counter to their previous word?
Thus, jurors that end up on the bench are forced by law to act as if every word by law enforcement is true, even if it contradicts physical reality. No?
During jury selection, the prosecutor and the defense attorney get to interview each potential juror. Both the prosecutor and the defense can eliminate potential jurors based on their answers. I believe they are allowed an unlimited number of challenges "for cause" and a limited number of challenges without cause.
If a juror stated that they believed that the word of law enforcement were always true, the defense attorney would almost certainly challenge them for cause, as that is clear bias, and they would not be selected for the jury.
In practice it's a balancing act, where the prosecution wants jurors who trust law enforcement and the defense wants jurors who are skeptical of law enforcement.
It is illegal to punish a juror for the decision they make during a trial. This is often referred to as "jury nullification" (or rather, is an important part of jury nullification).
> Jurors are asked if they will treat the word of law enforcement as always true. Jurors are disqualified if they don't say yes.
Realistically, jurors will instead be challenged for cause by the defense if they do say yes to that question.
They might be challenged by the prosecution if they indicate a bias against police testimony (either for cause or as a peremptory challenge, depending on the details and the prosecutor and the judge.)
> Thus, jurors that end up on the bench are forced by law to act as if every word by law enforcement is true, even if it contradicts physical reality. No?
No. If that were the case, there would be no need for evidence, a judge, a jury, or a trial. "Just ask the cops" is not how this system works.
Remember you’re reading a thread of some folks on the internet that come from a similar background and seem to have opinions absolutely inconsistent with reality IMO, based on my experience.
Both sides look for jurors who have bias where they will come with a pre-shared opinion. The last jury I was on included a former US Attorney, an insurance investigator and a NAACP regional director. We were asked to answer questions honestly and nobody had access to our process.
I’ve been on 3 juries, and in 2/3 we partially or fully acquitted a defendant based on many factors. Frankly, in each case I walked away with an appreciation that the system can work.
While principals are important practically good people spend a lot of time applying the principal that one should do what has the most utility for all. This is to say looking at the forseeable ends and picking the means.
You are making the same statement again without a single proof or example to show why lying is ethical, moral, and correct. Repetition doesn't add correctness.
It's along the lines of jury nullification. The people have some recourse in overriding court rules and court rulings when the court is not behaving in accordance with justice.