Jury Selection is Stereotyping

The story currently flying through right-wing Twitter is that the lead juror on the Roger Stone case ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2012. Stone’s attorneys knew about this, and even brought it up during jury selection (pg 46):

BUSCHEL (Stone’s Attorney): The fact that you run for an office, you're affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I'm saying and getting at?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.

MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?

MR. KRAVIS: Objection.

THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right, you can step out.

(Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?

MR. BUSCHEL: No.

THE COURT: Okay, let's bring in the next juror.

The juror was never excluded, and now Stone’s tribe is crying foul.

I screen jury members for a living, although nothing as high profile as this. You really don't have a ton of room to maneuver with voir dire with regards to which jurors you can kick out with cause. You're generally entitled to multiple peremptory challenges; this is the no-questions-asked kick anyone off that you want. As a defense attorney, I use this to get rid of cops, assholes who claim they've never ever been pulled over, or idiots who blurt out that my client must be guilty of something if he's in court. This part involves a ton of stereotyping. Few people will blurt out their biases outright, and the information you receive about each juror is extremely sparse, so you end up creating these caricatures in your head based on their profession and limited answers.

The other challenge you can argue is for cause. This is when someone tells you that no matter what, they think all accused rapists must be guilty, or that they'll believe police officers no matter, or that they think all drugs should be legal and this possession trial is a waste of time. Each side can argue to the judge that the juror should be excused because they cannot be fair and impartial. This rarely ever happens. Often times, the judge will just ask the juror who spoke their mind if they can still remain fair and impartial and unless they're trying to get kicked out, they'll say yes, and that's enough for a judge.

So this juror. If Trump was on trial, you'd have a really damn good argument that they could not be fair an impartial. But it's not Trump, it's someone associated with Trump. That's not enough. Imagine if it is, at that point you'd have carte blanche to kick out any Democratic voters. But then the prosecution would have grounds to argue that you'd have to kick out any Republican voters. Then you're left with only people who have never voted or otherwise indicated an iota of their political stance. By the way, did you know that jury summons are usually done through voter registries?