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

49

u/Both_Examination9788 18h ago

They also select against people who are more likely to be wise to the lawyers’ tricks (other lawyers, psychologists, etc.)

43

u/Hortos 18h ago

You mean ANY professional of above average intelligence?

21

u/Both_Examination9788 18h ago edited 18h ago

I mean generally yeah lol. But particularly those who are more logic-driven. People in STEM are often disqualified.

12

u/SunshineCat 17h ago

Seems kind of insane to specifically select for people who think in a reactionary/emotional way instead of at least allowing a group that actually represents the overall population.

17

u/HappycatAF 17h ago

There is a saying in law, “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.”

If the two sides are at the jury stage, they are usually at the table pounding side since if the law or facts were on their side it would have long settled.
So if it is that type of case, they want a jury that can be persuaded by emotion. There is also no shortage of them.

1

u/SunshineCat 16h ago

Interesting...appreciate the context.

7

u/Prometheus720 17h ago

This makes me angry.

2

u/Awkward_Pangolin3254 14h ago

"You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"

5

u/c-9 16h ago

I am in STEM and I've been on a few juries. I do it because I take the responsibility seriously. I try to be the person I'd want to be on the jury in case I was on trial. You pretty much have to keep your mouth shut during voir dire.

I was able to convince a jury to acquit a woman. Judging by appearances, she was probably guilty. But our justice system shouldn't operate on prejudice. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they didn't make a good case. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. Which the prosecution did not meet IMO.

5

u/RegulatoryCapture 16h ago

FWIW, I'm a STEMmy person and I've been on a jury where someone from my specific profession actually testified as an expert.

The lawyers hung around to talk to the jury afterwards and I asked about it. The defense wanted me there--to my eye it was a pretty clear emotion vs facts personal injury lawsuit so I can understand why they wanted me. The plaintiffs didn't think I was worth burning a rejection over...figured if their facts were better, I'd side with them--I certainly wasn't some biased juror who would never side with their client and that's who they need to save their challenges for (e.g. someone who doesn't believe in offering pain and suffering damages at all).

1

u/HappycatAF 17h ago

If the case involves any science or expertise, they want juries to rely on their experts and not second guess them at all.

Another thing to consider is that if the case was simply based on facts and logic, it would have already settled. If it is going to court with a jury, both sides are basically gambling that they can convince a jury of non-experts that they are right.

16

u/Scheissdrauf88 18h ago

I think you can't call yourself a justice system anymore when performance plays a bigger role than facts.

4

u/firedmyass 18h ago

I’m semi-retired and would like to do my duty but I have a close relative who is a judge so I’m immediately stricken the second they see my orientation form. I get it though.

1

u/Darmok47 15h ago

My law school professor was a nationally recognized Criminal Law expert. He was selected for the jury on a criminal trial. He couldn't believe it, and neither could we. He suspects the prosecution liked him because he used to be a prosecutor, and the defense liked him because of his academic background.

1

u/eljefino 11h ago

If the facts are on your side, argue those.

If they aren't, argue about loopholes in the law.

If you don't have that either, pound the table/ appeal to emotion.

If you're on a jury, watch for which of the three behaviors they exhibit. Oh, yeah, and listen to the judge's instructions, not some dude from reddit.