What Are Three Examples Of Accompanying Juror Attitudes?
#18 –– What are five “maxims” believed by many attorneys about juror characteristics and accompanying juror attitudes? During the stage of jury selection, attorneys have the opportunity to remove specific jurors that they believe may possess prejudicial attitudes that may negatively effect their goal regarding the outcome of the case. There are specific subjects that attorneys can touch upon when asking their potential jurors questions that may or may not reflect their attitudes of topics similar to their case. Examples of topics addressed include: media contact, knowledge of the defendants and their case, trust in the government, spare time activities, organizational memberships, opinion on war/conflicts, and other issues that are potentially related to the trial.
…show more content…
The goal of the attorney is to expose any of these possible juror characteristics or attitudes that may provide them with a greater knowledge of who would be best appropriate to witness the case proceedings.
For instance, if a prosecutor were to ask a particular juror how they feel about the government and the juror immediately responds by saying how he/she is distrustful of policy-makers overall intentions for the well being of society, the prosecutor is more likely to remove this juror because of the fact that they are more likely to be distrustful of the criminal justice system and thus, are more likely to take the side of the defense at the conclusion of the hearing. On the contrary, if the juror were to explain that he/she were indifferent or had no opinion of the government and its intentions, then the prosecutor probably would refrain from removing that specific juror. The strategy behind this process is important because each attorney ultimately has a goal to represent either the defendant or the state in the best possible manner. As a result, both attorneys desire to obtain jurors who will be more sympathetic to their side of the
case.
#19 –– What is meant by the “fruit of the poisonous tree?” What does it have to do with evidence? Explain briefly. The term “fruit of the poisonous tree” refers to evidence derived from police that was either gathered illegally or was obtained somehow in a flawed manner during the process. One example of evidence gathered in such a way would be a defendant admitting their guilt through police coercion. An individual cannot be coerced into saying anything and any evidence gathered in this manner is not usable as adequate source material in court.
“Fruit of the poisonous tree” refers to any evidence that was obtained in a way that violated the constitutional rights of another individual. Another example would be if an officer used a secret wire-tap while speaking to a suspect. Without a warrant or advisement of the suspect’s rights, anything said or revealed during this conversation cannot be used as substantial evidence in court and is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. This concept is important because it involves the protection of every individual’s constitutional rights and makes a clear statement as to how law enforcement must go about obtaining evidence in a genuine and legitimate manner while respecting the rights of every individual despite their possible affiliation with a crime.
The goal of the attorney is to expose any of these possible juror characteristics or attitudes that may provide them with a greater knowledge of who would be best appropriate to witness the case proceedings.
For instance, if a prosecutor were to ask a particular juror how they feel about the government and the juror immediately responds by saying how he/she is distrustful of policy-makers overall intentions for the well being of society, the prosecutor is more likely to remove this juror because of the fact that they are more likely to be distrustful of the criminal justice system and thus, are more likely to take the side of the defense at the conclusion of the hearing. On the contrary, if the juror were to explain that he/she were indifferent or had no opinion of the government and its intentions, then the prosecutor probably would refrain from removing that specific juror. The strategy behind this process is important because each attorney ultimately has a goal to represent either the defendant or the state in the best possible manner. As a result, both attorneys desire to obtain jurors who will be more sympathetic to their side of the
case.
#19 –– What is meant by the “fruit of the poisonous tree?” What does it have to do with evidence? Explain briefly. The term “fruit of the poisonous tree” refers to evidence derived from police that was either gathered illegally or was obtained somehow in a flawed manner during the process. One example of evidence gathered in such a way would be a defendant admitting their guilt through police coercion. An individual cannot be coerced into saying anything and any evidence gathered in this manner is not usable as adequate source material in court.
“Fruit of the poisonous tree” refers to any evidence that was obtained in a way that violated the constitutional rights of another individual. Another example would be if an officer used a secret wire-tap while speaking to a suspect. Without a warrant or advisement of the suspect’s rights, anything said or revealed during this conversation cannot be used as substantial evidence in court and is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. This concept is important because it involves the protection of every individual’s constitutional rights and makes a clear statement as to how law enforcement must go about obtaining evidence in a genuine and legitimate manner while respecting the rights of every individual despite their possible affiliation with a crime.