Almost half of the prospective jurors for a Twitter investor lawsuit against Elon Musk were disqualified because they declared their hatred for him.
I can lie about hating him long enough to survive voir dire. Put me in, coach!
Out of the jury pool of 93, Breyer dismissed 40 of them right off the bat when he asked who did not feel they could set aside their biases and they raised their hands.
I don’t doubt most of the city hates him, but this quote also has a huge overlap with the “I don’t want jury duty” demographic.
The other half just kept their mouths shut.
It’s why I kind of have to admit that a celebrity/(in)famous person likely can’t get a fair jury trial.
It’s also extraordinarily difficult to set aside your prejudices when on a jury. I’ve been on two and it’s hard when I can’t tell if I (don’t) believe a witness or I (don’t) want to believe a witness.
it’s hard when I can’t tell if I (don’t) believe a witness or I (don’t) want to believe a witness.
Having this thought alone makes you a very qualified juror
I wouldn’t miss the opportunity to say he’s guilty lol. I’m biased but I wouldn’t say it openly just so I can declare him guilty.
It’s hard not to. Once you start seeing injustice, it’s hard to stay silent.
In my jury selection, I was tossed immediately after saying that everyone who witnessed the crime are white cops, and none of the evidence comes from anyone but the white cops.
If I was a stronger person, I’d say nothing and then be prepared to point out that issue during the actual trial with my fellow jurors.
Well first of all jury duty compensation is a fucking joke. You usually have to drive into a city where there is no parking at the ass crack of dawn during rush hour. Go through security bullshit. Deal with a bunch of dead-eyed, dickhead gov’t workers that seem annoyed by your very existence. And then you find out it’s for this fucking nepo-baby, everything-grifting pedophile that just gets his way no matter what anyway? I don’t blame them at all. The whole system needs to be overhauled.
Yeah but also it’s the price of having a jury of your peers if you need it
src.what if Nuremberg trials had been held this way? Al Capone’s tax evasion trial should have only had jurors who had a neutral view on all of his murder and extortion? Self-promoted quotable notoriety differs from propaganda/narrative notoriety.
I think the point is that they need to “start” neutral, and then get an opinion once they get informed about his doings.
The main problem is that he is an asshole of such an extent that it is hard to find someone who never heard of him (and therefore dislikes him)
I think the point is that they need to “start” neutral, and then get an opinion once they get informed about his doings.
Him being an asshole doesn’t mean he did twitter fraud. I don’t think a trial showing he’s an asshole would be relevant in addressing the twitter fraud part. It’s similar to just because Al Capone is an extortionist murderer doesn’t mean he’s guilty of tax fraud.
I lack the right passport, but I’m an excellent liar. I’m pretty ambivalent about Elon Musk. Is he the car guy?
no, the boring guy
Oh, I thought he was Fully Self Drugged chap.
You know, most people just don’t want to do jury duty, right? If they picked me I’d be all for it, but I’m in Canada… Darn it.
There should be a condition “guilty by default”
If you literally cannot find anyone who is capable of being impartial, just declare the defendant guilty, because any jury would inevitably arrive there
There’s no way that could backfire, surely.
