Should jury selection be blind/anonymous?

[B-Fly]

My experience clerking in federal district court was that the attorneys' jury challenges appeared to be based overwhelmingly on broad racial, cultural, gender and age-based stereotypes. Would moving to blind/anonymous jury selection lead to a more fair and more just system?

https://www.theroot.com/the-one-place-colorblindness-will-benefit-black-people-1830655467

[baldgriff]

Nope - attorney's should be able to see all the people that they are trying to make decisions about. Individuals manner or dress, non-verbal communications are also things that are indicative of what and how a juror may think or feel. Its important information and just as relevant.

[TranaGreg]

It is important information ... but I think it's less relevant than how they answer the questions put to them.

Simply put, there are issues if it's a blind process, and issues if it isn't.

IMO the benefits of a blind selection process outweigh the problems with it.

[Ken]

Simply put, there are issues if it's a blind process, and issues if it isn't.

What are the issues if it is a blind process

[TranaGreg]

bg alluded to it above - decision making on whether to include or exclude a potential juror based only on partial information; there's also the potential to have a blatantly skewed jury (e.g. all of one ethnicity), whereas non-blind selection requires consideration of the makeup of the overall jury

[baldgriff]

I also think the potential jurors should also be able to see the people that they are being interviewed by. People are not automatons - for good or bad - we use our senses and intuitions to make decisions related to a variety of everyday events to those things that are out of the ordinary. We should not be limiting certain decision making valuators to either the lawyers or the jurors.

If you think about the discussions here - they are all non-verbal in nature. Sometimes we get pissed off, or misunderstand someone's intended question because the context and the non-verbal portions are missing. This in my mind makes the conversation very difficult - and sometimes just choosing the wrong word sends a conversation spinning off into other unintended directions. Nope - you gotta do this in person - live - face to face.

[Ken]

there's also the potential to have a blatantly skewed jury (e.g. all of one ethnicity)

But doesn't that go back to the original point? Is it a problem to have a jury all of one ethnicity?

If it is problematic, ethnicity has to be a valid reason to remove a potential jury member.

If it is not, then the blind method does not add much value, right?.

(interesting topic btw, I was a potential jurur recently and this came to mind for me at that point as well).

[TranaGreg]

...If you think about the discussions here - they are all non-verbal in nature. Sometimes we get pissed off, or misunderstand someone's intended question because the context and the non-verbal portions are missing. This in my mind makes the conversation very difficult - and sometimes just choosing the wrong word sends a conversation spinning off into other unintended directions. Nope - you gotta do this in person - live - face to face.

fwiw I don't think this is a good comp - being a juror at a trial is not a discussion or a conversation - it needs to be a cold assessment of the facts presented in the room. In the courtroom there is no back & forth that a juror can participate in - they are silent observers of the information presented.

[TranaGreg]

But doesn't that go back to the original point? Is it a problem to have a jury all of one ethnicity?

If it is problematic, ethnicity has to be a valid reason to remove a potential jury member.

If it is not, then the blind method does not add much value, right?.

(interesting topic btw, I was a potential jurur recently and this came to mind for me at that point as well).

good point - it's the difference between micro & macro - in assessing an individual juror you don't want ethnicity to be a factor - but if you are considering systemic biases then we need to look at jury makeup as a whole over periods of time.

as an aside, in my world we are looking at adding race-based data to our systems to be able to study impacts on bail - i.e. identify if there is bias in our bail-granting processes. Collection of that info is not going to be easy ...

[baldgriff]

fwiw I don't think this is a good comp - being a juror at a trial is not a discussion or a conversation - it needs to be a cold assessment of the facts presented in the room. In the courtroom there is no back & forth that a juror can participate in - they are silent observers of the information presented.

Im talking about the juror selection process. I agree that jurors dont typically take part in anything other than that. One of the things that might be good to assess is a persons ability to sit and focus for an extended period - say more than 5 minutes. If we do this blind, the lawyer doesnt get to see who stares off into space, is fidgety, yawns frequently. Likewise the juror can make decisions about the lawyer and will determine what he may want to or not want to reveal in the process of being interviewed.

You got to interview the prospective jurors face to face - there is way more information to be gleaned about the juror by seeing them than there may be in their response.

[baldgriff]

good point - it's the difference between micro & macro - in assessing an individual juror you don't want ethnicity to be a factor - but if you are considering systemic biases then we need to look at jury makeup as a whole over periods of time.

Im not a defense attorney, but I would certainly think it likely defense attorneys would like to know the ethnicity of the juror in comparison to the defendant. It may actually be favorable to the defense to have someone of the same ethnicity/heritage on the defense as they may better understand where the defendant is coming from.

[B-Fly]

Im not a defense attorney, but I would certainly think it likely defense attorneys would like to know the ethnicity of the juror in comparison to the defendant. It may actually be favorable to the defense to have someone of the same ethnicity/heritage on the defense as they may better understand where the defendant is coming from.

Probably, but since Blacks are generally a minority of the jury pool and a disproportionate share of those brought to trial, what happens more often is that the prosecutor uses a combination of preemptory challenges and challenges for cause to remove Blacks from the jury weighing the fate of a Black defendant. Of course, they'll always have a reason other than race to cite if questioned by defense counsel or the judge. Defense counsel often has limited ability to prevent that from happening. All he/she can do is decide which jurors to use his/her challenges on.

[baldgriff]

Arent they generally a minority of the jury pool, similarly to Asians or East Indian or Native American, because they are a minority to the general population? If there are reasonable concerns other than skin tone, then I dont know if I have an issue with it. Everything about a prospective juror should be on the table to investigate and ask prior to the start of the trial. Our individual personal experiences make us likely to lean one way or the other - my heritage/culture is part of those experiences that make me who I am and play into how I make decisions.

[B-Fly]

Arent they generally a minority of the jury pool, similarly to Asians or East Indian or Native American, because they are a minority to the general population? If there are reasonable concerns other than skin tone, then I dont know if I have an issue with it. Everything about a prospective juror should be on the table to investigate and ask prior to the start of the trial. Our individual personal experiences make us likely to lean one way or the other - my heritage/culture is part of those experiences that make me who I am and play into how I make decisions.

Yes, because they're a minority of the population. Many states also make convicted felons ineligible for jury duty, which disproportionately impacts Blacks. The Supreme Court has already said that challenging jurors on the basis of race is not acceptable, but because it's impossible to read the attorney's mind, it's close to impossible to prove, because the lawyers know they have to have something other than race they can tell the judge if challenged.

[baldgriff]

Yes, because they're a minority of the population. Many states also make convicted felons ineligible for jury duty, which disproportionately impacts Blacks. The Supreme Court has already said that challenging jurors on the basis of race is not acceptable, but because it's impossible to read the attorney's mind, it's close to impossible to prove, because the lawyers know they have to have something other than race they can tell the judge if challenged.

If there is a legal reason to disqualify someone isnt it the lawyers prerogative and possible their job to actually disqualify the person.

Edit to add: It may also me more about the legal reason to disqualify than it is about the color of their skin.