r/nottheonion • u/ArgentineBeauty • 19h ago

Reese Witherspoon Chosen as Jury Foreman After Jurors Thought She Went to Law School Because of Legally Blonde

https://www.fashiontimes.co.uk/reese-witherspoon-jury-duty-mix-1763528
25.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

108

u/Yubat 18h ago

As a lawyer, I would love to be on one. Civil, criminal, whatever. It would be fun to really see it from the other side. Alas, any time I am up for a jury I’ve been screened out before the process finishes; once I made it to the final round of voir dire but got cut— I would have been juror #8 😔

27

u/musicman835 18h ago

I’ve had attorneys from my office get on civil juries. But they’re tossed faster than spoiled milk for criminal trials.

7

u/turquoiseblues 17h ago

Why don’t they want lawyers to serve on juries for criminal trials?

21

u/musicman835 16h ago

Lawyers may end up influencing a jury, because the other jurors (as in this case) believe they know better and will go along with their decision.

Lawyers know the law and would be better about questioning evidence or questioning reasonable doubt, and push back on something they find circumstantial in deliberation.

Attorneys don’t want other attorneys auditing (for lack of better word) their trial skills.

They often won’t take other highly educated folks either, as they are more likely to have (and I don’t mean this in a negative way) better critical thinking skills and don’t just take what their being told as fact.

An aquittal in a criminal trial is final. They cannot be tried again.

1

u/4rdpr3f3ct 7h ago

IAAL and am currently on a Grand Jury. Interestingly, our jurisdiction removed peremptory challenges, which may be why I was not removed. It is very interesting.

119

u/TBSchemer 18h ago

They always screen me out as soon as they hear I have a PhD.

You probably know this better than I do, but I believe lawyers deliberately try to craft a jury full of uneducated rubes who are easily manipulated.

60

u/Yubat 18h ago

[u/SpockShotFirst](u/SpockShotFirst) explains it well, but I’ll add that attorneys generally want the case decided based on what they present and argue. They want narrative control. Those who bring relevant outside expertise add a new variable that the neither side can easily predict or control, so easier to dump that person than take on additional risk. Does that mean a higher level of rubes in the jury sometimes? It certainly can.

8

u/bullitt-rider 14h ago

Agree to a point but I've had cases where the jury dynamic isn't as described... God forbid there be any large sporting events or TV series ending...

When the judge has to give strict directions on things like 'wearing a thong does not equate to consent' you do have to question if that's predictable and controllable or unsuitable

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

the judge has to give strict directions on things like 'wearing a thong does not equate to consent'

because that's incredibly important.

2

u/bullitt-rider 1h ago

Yes clearly and it shouldn't have to be answered with note.

72

u/SpockShotFirst 18h ago

Both sides can cut jurors. If one side benefits from educated jurors, the other side will try to keep them out. So it isn't that lawyers, as a monolith, "deliberately try to craft a jury full of uneducated rubes." It's just that chances are high that at least one side is counting on that strategy.

24

u/ApprehensivePop9036 16h ago

"the problem with this case is you'd need to be a total idiot to accept these arguments from our side."

"We'll handle that in voir dire"

19

u/forrealthoughcomix_ 18h ago

Damn. And here I am wanting to sit on a jury as an educated rube who is easily manipulated :(

19

u/jrzalman 17h ago

I always hear this, usually like your story posted in a self-congratulatory way, but never really experienced it. I've been on like eight juries and get picked every time. I tell them I'm an aerospace engineer, answer all their questions well and always get picked.

Probably depends on the case but I think many lawyers are looking for jurors that can understand their arguments.

4

u/TBSchemer 17h ago

That's interesting. 3 times already, I was dismissed immediately after the question of "what's your highest level of education?"

8

u/jrzalman 17h ago

Might be demographics or age combined with education? Hard to say. I was on a murder trial last year and one of my fellow jurors was lawyer (non-criminal case work) and they let her through. The case itself was fairly involved and had lots of twists and turns.

Likely a lot of variation in what lawyers are looking for from case to case but what I have learned is they are looking for me. I have never been excused. I always volunteer to be foreman and get us out of there in a day or two.

2

u/TBSchemer 15h ago edited 14h ago

Yeah, being a white male probably gives me 2 strikes, and then add a PhD into the mix and I'm out.

Come to think of it, for one of my 3 dismissals, we didn't even get to the education question. I literally just sat down in the booth, no questions asked, and someone said, "jurors 3, 4, 8, and 11, you may leave." Checked my number, and I was 11.

I remember thinking, "maybe you could just let me send a photo in the mail, so I don't have to get up and drive here next time."

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Also location. If you're Berkley, everyone's gonna have a handful of degrees. If you're in Hahira, Georgia, and a PhD comes through the door, you ain't playin' that game.

9

u/newenglandpolarbear 18h ago

That's pretty much exactly it. Either that or they try to fill the jury with people they think will be sympathetic to their case. Both sides can do it.

4

u/CharlieKelly_Esq 15h ago

Many times attorneys want reasonable people or a person with an average/normal level of rational. When a person possesses a higher education degree, it can signal a person that is hyper rational. In some ways it could seem like this would be better for the jury, but without explicit jury instructions being given, a juror might not realize that what they require to be convinced is too much.

3

u/bicycle_mice 16h ago

I have a doctorate (NP) and have been selected for a jury.

2

u/Radiant_Jedi 16h ago

I have had similar experiences where I get cut once they find out that I'm a professor of rhetoric and composition. They don't seem to like that I fully understand about things like standards of evidence, pathos appeals, etc.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Nope. We don't want people who are going to mistakenly think expertise in some other field has a damn thing to do with being a juror. Basically, we think you'll be bad at it.

1

u/TBSchemer 3h ago

Really? Because I thought being a competent juror is about being willing to suspend assumptions and follow evidence and logic to their reasonable conclusions, which is the key skill PhDs are specifically trained in.

Except when law clearly tramples morality, in which case jury nullification becomes the mandate.

You might be thinking of Masters degrees, which are awarded merely for "expertise in some other field."

18

u/KellyCTargaryen 18h ago

Don’t give up hope! I worked for a trial lawyer professor, he confidently left for jury duty certain he would be immediately dismissed… one of the lawyers was his former student, so he was selected.

20

u/Yubat 18h ago edited 18h ago

Lol holy hell. I’m shocked the judge and opposing counsel let that through. I’m amazed his former student was cool with it; I’d be on eggshells the whole time if I had to present a real matter to one of my former professors. Must have been interesting for everyone!

6

u/Warning_Low_Battery 16h ago

It was probably a case where he could be guaranteed to be impartial and decide only on the facts, with no vibes involved.

3

u/lars5 16h ago

it may have just been a situation of bad jury pool and not enough challenges.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Totally depends on the prof. And yea, the judge should have absolutely not allowed that.

17

u/Qalyar 17h ago

I'm a data analyst. Never made it past voir dire either.

I'm pretty sure whichever side has the weaker case always is motivated to cut people whose profession involves a lot of critical thinking (or outright legal experience). Objectively, I understand why that's the case. But I worry that it doesn't really represent a healthy outcome for our jury system.

Not that I've got any great suggestions on how to fix it; I'm just an analyst, it's someone else's job to action the problems! ;)

4

u/Prometheus720 17h ago

Do you think there should be any sort of check on the ability of lawyers to just remove anyone who is some kind of professional?

It seems horrifically anti-democratic to me.

5

u/lostkavi 15h ago

There is.

A limited number of removals. You can't keep cycling juries until you get a pool of dullards.

1

u/Fuzzy-Jaguar-1828 13h ago

I know right….people have these grand theories that they’re too smart to ever get out on a jury.

1

u/Prometheus720 11h ago

That's not much of a check.

2

u/lostkavi 11h ago

Well you can't wholesale removals, they form a crucial role in jury selection, or we risk going back to the 19th century with the one black dude on trial before 12 white guys who think he should be hanged for the fun of it.

Do remember, lawyers select their jury pools based on who they can agree they both want. The lowest common denominator is not always the ideal Juror. Especially complex cases may have both sides wanting more professional and intelligent jurors so they can better understand the arguments put forth.

2

u/lars5 16h ago

same, but at the same time i've become very disillusioned with the whole process. i don't want to completely dismiss it as a dog and pony show, but you get judges presiding over cases where they're not familiar with the field of law, the jury is either comprised of the lowest common denominator or people hostile to your client, and the expert witnesses' charisma is more important than their actual expertise. there's no guarantee that any decision will be made on a thorough analysis of fact, law, and credibility. we as a society just agreed to abide by convoluted legal theater and call it justice because it's better than letting people kill each other in the streets.

2

u/Hairy_Mycologist_945 16h ago

Imagine suddenly being back in kindergarten, but with other adults who don't know how to do anything and no teacher, and you've got an approximate look at it.

2

u/Darmok47 15h ago

I had a law professor who was a Crim Law expert serve on a jury in a criminal case, so you may get your chance! I think the bigger problem is that the other jurors will defer to you, rather than use their own judgment though.

I had a classmate in law school who disappeared for two weeks and I thought he dropped the class. Turns out he got jury duty and the judge was really happy to have him there because he thought it would be a great educational experience for him lol.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Are you a trial lawyer? I'm sure having a lawyer on a jury suuuucks. They're going to be critiquing every fucking thing you do. And you know it's an audience of one. Just like you, I'd love to be on a jury, and I'd do my best to be a good juror, but we both know that we'd basically be single-handedly determining what the jury returns.

1

u/lilmimzzz 1h ago

Me too — but lawyers in Ontario are one of the professions excluded from jury duty!