Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I can only speak to my jury experience, but most people were thrown out for that reason. Perhaps they were simply looking for an excuse not to serve (like me!), but all I remember is anyone who had heard or knew of the case wasn't considered.
But this isn't the usual high profile case. This is an international high profile case at this point, ala Casey Anthony/OJ. Getting an impartial jury will be virtually impossible, let alone a grand jury to hear the facts.
|
Excluding jurors for that reason, and that reason alone, isn't going to fly in pretty much any court room when pretty much the entire pool of potential jurors will have heard of the matter. Both sides will get a few challenges that they can use with no explanation (race based exclusions being the exception), but otherwise they'll have to satisfy the court that the person should be excluded. If that wasn't the case we'd have never gotten a jury for the OJ case. If you were sitting for a jury in a case that didn't have widespread coverage previous knowledge may be an adequate reason to dismiss a juror, there would be plenty to fill the spots.
It's a little different with the Grand Jury as there's no requirement to engage in the process, so you can essentially skip that step and still get to the same result by having the DA make the determination on whether to charge.