[Eugene Volokh, February 9, 2007 at 8:10pm] Trackbacks
Our First Citation in Voir Dire?

Or at least it's the first one known to us. From Pachacutec (Huffington Post), blogging last month about the examination of potential jurors in the Libby trial, and quoting "one of the day's last potential jurors[,] a young defense attorney from one of the law firms in town":

He cites first among the blogs he read "Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit" before throwing in Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, DailyKos, Eugene Volokh, How Appealing and some other law related blog....

BobVDV (mail):
Did that result in the potential juror being excused?

Reading blogs is assuredly a safer habit for prospective jurors than hunting with the Vice President.
2.9.2007 9:27pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
I wonder if reading Volokh or How Appealing or Underneatheirobes would qualify or not qualify someone to be a juror in a particular case? Has anyone done an SSRN study?
2.10.2007 2:07am
Ted Frank (www):
I wonder who "Pachacutec" is that he or she can make such irresponsible speculation that a juror is perjuring himself in voir dire.

And why isn't the juror reading Point of Law?
2.10.2007 6:32am
Steve:
I wonder who "Pachacutec" is that he or she can make such irresponsible speculation that a juror is perjuring himself in voir dire.

Someone bring the fainting couch for Ted Frank, please. Oh, how dreadfully "irresponsible" to make judgments about someone's credibility!

I had jury duty last year and as I sat there listening to voir dire I would occasionally think, "Okay, that person's obviously bullshitting." This is how the world functions. It's really not that big a deal.
2.10.2007 12:13pm
hey (mail):
The HuffPo piece just exhibits partisan biases. We believe those who with agree with us and other people are lying pieces of trash. I do it, you do it, we all do it (Avenue Q II - Policy Wonks).

As to why the lawyer likely wasn't lieing: a lawyer will obviously have a dramatically higher bar of "knowledge" about a case. We see this in posts here where bloggers and commenters denigrate their opinions as they only gave the case's file a quick read. Scholarly lawyer > practicing lawyer > interested observer > disinterested observer in terms of their internally expected knowledge. Pachacutec's assumption of dishonesty shows a shocking level of ignorance and bad faith as well as a dramatic lack of self-awareness.
2.10.2007 9:00pm
Lev:
Perhaps I am mistaken, so let me aks.

This Pachahutec character says he believes the lawyer was biased and would be tossed by a preemptory challenge.

Is it still the case that jurors can be tossed for biased, by the court, without using preemptory challenges?

And if so, what does that say about Pachahutec?

Reminds me of the movie Bubba Ho-Tep. Curiously entertaining - Elvis Presley and JFK living in a East Texas nursing home deal with the undead.
2.11.2007 12:36am