Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (64769)	12/2/1999 5:27:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

My recollection is that numbers differ in CA. As for meaningful alteration of a jury, the number of strikes can be as low as one. A "pot luck" system would be more appropriate, in my view.

To: Ilaine who wrote (64769)	12/2/1999 5:44:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

True, but if she knows what she's doing an aggressive lawyer can often figure out ways to get the judge to dismiss jurors for cause. No judge wants the case appealed on the grounds of jury prejudice, so judges will favor striking jurors if there's a realistic chance the lawyer might be able to appeal. I have done it myself -- I get a juror I really don't want but want to save my preemptories, so will explore the juror until I find something sufficient to move the court to strike for cause. I wish the game weren't played that way, but as long as it is, I've got to play that way.