Yeah, also maybe explains a bit about the guilty verdicts in the first place - I bet every single one of those prospective jurors got rejected and the prosecution didn’t have to spend any of their challenges to do it because being opposed to ICE meant they were “biased”
Normally you only get a certain number of rejections to prevent dragging out the process. So if being “against Ice” is structural bias, while being “pro ice” counts against your three or whatever rejections…the jury will be pro ice.
Huh, every single state court system does things differently so maybe there was no limit in your case, but there is definitely a limit in federal trials, see Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24, part (b) here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_24 (arc)
Yeah, also maybe explains a bit about the guilty verdicts in the first place - I bet every single one of those prospective jurors got rejected and the prosecution didn’t have to spend any of their challenges to do it because being opposed to ICE meant they were “biased”
Yup. And every juror that was sat either was a lying MAGAt or was just as naïve as one and therefore thought they actually were sentencing terrorists.
Both the defence and prosecution can reject jurors. So defence could reject anyone who supports ICE
Normally you only get a certain number of rejections to prevent dragging out the process. So if being “against Ice” is structural bias, while being “pro ice” counts against your three or whatever rejections…the jury will be pro ice.
I’ve been on a jury. There was no limit to the number of rejections. It took them days to pick a jury.
Huh, every single state court system does things differently so maybe there was no limit in your case, but there is definitely a limit in federal trials, see Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24, part (b) here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_24 (arc)