what questions can i ask potential jurors?

[javajoe7]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA but mine is a FEDERAL CASE.
I want to get a fair jury of my peers as some experts believe
85% of cases are won or lost based on jury selection.
I dont want any condescending christians on my jury, i want MY peers
which are educated atheists/agnostics.
Regardless though if i get any condescending christians, I want to get across my point to them somehow that jail is mental torture especially to the families of those sentenced (like my dog will think i died, which is such mental torture to me i cant even explain). also jail is just wharehousing americas poor, doesnt lower crime or violence, only more jobs , national healthcare, national college , etc will lower violence and crime in the long run but the BIG MACHINE of jail in this country wants to keep on runnin'. also i want to say that jail is a waste of tax payers dollars and just contributes to our deficeit which is out of control already.
LOOK I KNOW I CANT SAY THESE THINGS LIKE THAT
but
can i ask something like, "have u ever had a loved one go to jail and seen what it did to you, even though u committed no crime"
PLS IF ANYONE RESPONDS PLS REFERENCE A LEGAL BASIS FOR UR ANSWER
THANKS

 

[cyjeff]

Yeah...

None of that drivel is going to be allowed in court for one second by any judge in the country.

This is why defending yourself in a jury trial is akin to taking out your own appendix with a butter knife and a bottle of scotch.

You cannot pick jurors that only think prison is torture.

By the way, here's a hint... jail is SUPPOSED to be punishment. That is why it isn't painted in primary colors.

Guess you shoulda thought about your dog before you did whatever you did... which was, by the way?

 

[cyjeff]

Actually, I take that back. You can.

However, you only get to strike so many jurors.... what, did you think you were going to be able to go through hundreds of people until you found just the folks you like?

Nope, you will get X strikes... maybe 4. The prosecution gets 4 strikes... and then you have a jury.

By the way, want to guess the people that the prosecution are going to strike? Think really really hard.

 

[Proserpina]

Post hx

 

[cyjeff]

Ahhhh....

So we are looking for 12 educated, agnostic, dog loving, prison hating people that have never had their identity stolen and are willing to listen to a rambling narrative about why incorrect SCOTUS cases surround illegal immigrants allow you to steal someone's social security number and get a charge card in their name?

Yeah... those 12 people don't exist.

Enjoy court, OP. It won't last long.

 

[cyjeff]

It is probably worth reviewing this topic, actually.

Peers, in a legal sense, doesn't mean carbon copies of you and your personality set on a given topic.

It means people that live in the same community you do... that could have just as easily been your neighbor as your victim.

Peers does NOT mean you get to bias the jury towards a group of people that think, feel and believe exactly as you do.

If that were so, no person - no matter how guilty - would EVER be convicted.... or, just as bad, would ever be found not guilty if the bias was on the prosecution side.

A jury is supposed to be a balanced group of people that share your community.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm trying to figure out what a "condescending Christian" might be. I thought anyone can be condescending - even agnostics and atheists. So, a "condescending Christian" would be unwanted, but a condescending agnostic or atheist would be okay?

 

[cbg]

This guy's posts are like a bad tooth. You know it's going to hurt but you can't help checking them out anyway.

 

[>Charlotte<]

You are not entitled to a jury of your "peers". You are entitled to a jury. Period. Your choices will be among those good citizens who are there to perform their civic duty. Take it or leave it.

 

[commentator]

And ya know, they might lie to you about it. Or not reveal their true feelings.
As java said, this case is going to be brief, especially the part where the jury goes out and makes their decision.

 

[>Charlotte<]

As java said, this case is going to be brief, especially the part where the jury goes out and makes their decision.

They might hold out for lunch.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

They might hold out for lunch.

To eat burgers n watch Jerry?

 

[You Are Guilty]

This guy's posts are like a bad tooth. You know it's going to hurt but you can't help checking them out anyway.

Just to keep a scintilla of legal advice in this thread, Java, go read up on "batson challenges", because it sounds like you are about to find what they are the hard way.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

You say this is a Federal case and it appears you are representing yourself. My first thought is that 99% of the questions you are wanting to ask deal exclusively with punishment and not guilt/innocence. Federal punishment is done by a judge not a jury and there are specific guidelines that determine your range so there isn't any point on questioning the jury venire on pure punishment issues. I guess you are hoping to find extremists like yourself that would vote not guilty because they think the justice system and prison system are unfair, even if they believed that the evidence proved the person were actually guilty. You can surely find a handful of such people on any jury panel but you can expect the Government attorneys to strike those individuals if they aren't struck for cause for outright admitting that they can't follow the law. If you are trying to indoctrinate others to this line of thinking, it ain't gonna work. You aren't going to change a person's views enough to get them to consciously disregard the law in the hour that you get for jury selection.

Finally, you need to research how jury selection is done in the courtroom where your case is set. My experience is that the VAST majority of federal judges conduct their own questioning and the attorneys or pro se defendant are not allowed to talk at all beyond introductions.