I don't want to derail the KA thread...

We know that several potential jurors stated that they could not be unbiased during voir dire. There's unfortunately an inherent presumption by many that these were simply along racial lines. Of course I think there are several plausible suggestions

• The potential juror has racist/racial bias
• The potential juror has already followed the story extensively across multiple platforms of "news"
• The potential juror just doesn't want to be there (why'd you show up/) or does not want to be on THIS jury

I think any of these are valid reasons held by a potential juror and I think any juror that doesn't want to be there, beyond a basic civic inconvenience, should have the right to self strike. That's what these comments do, they serve to self strike. I have absolutely no problem with this.

Here's my question... If someone DOES conceal a bias that should have otherwise precluded them from serving AND this can be proven (careless comments during deliberation?) can they open themselves up to legal woes? Isn't a jury sworn in prior to commencement of voir dire and they are sworn to be truthful and forthcoming in their answers to questions? Finally in the case of high profile trials where alternates are selected would a situation like described above be grounds for removal of a juror?

TIA

in theory, it's perjury.

But how would you ever prove they actually were biased against one side despite saying they were not?

Ok. I figured that's where it would fall. Technically perjury.
But short of an outburst during deliberations any attempt to prove it would just involve hearsay. You'd need "I'll never vote to send a brotha' behind bars!" Or, "After what my ex put me through I'll never take the woman's/man's side!"

I've never sat on a jury so I've never been in that room.

Quote:

---

Here's my question... If someone DOES conceal a bias that should have otherwise precluded them from serving AND this can be proven (careless comments during deliberation?) can they open themselves up to legal woes? Isn't a jury sworn in prior to commencement of voir dire and they are sworn to be truthful and forthcoming in their answers to questions? Finally in the case of high profile trials where alternates are selected would a situation like described above be grounds for removal of a juror?

---

A lot of questions there.

Let me start with most obvious. What is said during jury deliberations is secret and sacrosanct. I remember back when I was at A&M that some idiot psychologist thought it would be a great idea to secretly record jury deliberations so they could "analyze" the peer dynamics in a jury. Automatic vacation of verdicts and retrials resulted when the study was published.

Now, as to removal of a juror, yes that can happen but it takes a snitch. The snitch can be inside or even outside of the jury room. Judge will ask the questions in chambers and then decide. (Sidenote here: Alex Murdaugh trial in SC. Court Clerk, Becky Hill had so much interaction with the jury, she knew which juror was unconvinced of his guilt, so she decided to spring into action, whisper to the judge and get that juror kicked off of the jury.)

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Ok. I figured that's where it would fall. Technically perjury.
But short of an outburst during deliberations any attempt to prove it would just involve hearsay. You'd need "I'll never vote to send a brotha' behind bars!" Or, "After what my ex put me through I'll never take the woman's/man's side!"

I've never sat on a jury so I've never been in that room.

---

Perjury can be tricky because a statement under oath versus a statement not under oath are different.

I've been a jury forman twice, both civil cases. Neither jury cared about the facts or the law. They just wanted to know who was the *******.