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

[u/ArgentineBeauty]

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

[u/legal_stylist]

So … defense attorneys presumably like them just fine, then?

[u/Repulsive_Stock9400 → u/legal_stylist]

I think it's probably prosecutors who most want clear-headed jurors, because they're not bringing charges for no reason, they just need people who can see the violation that occurred, no vibes required.

I was a trial attorney for years on the civil side, mostly personal injury, and I never wanted smart jurors. I didn't want dumb jurors either, I just wanted regular ass people who were smart enough to understand what I was saying but not so smart that they would resist it.

I was mentored in PI by a lawyer who was a big fan of "blood, guts and twisted metal," which means taking very graphic photos of injuries and very dramatic photos of the aftermath of auto wrecks, then waving them around like "When a jury sees these, they're going to freak out, so just pay me, boss!" To follow through on that threat, if the insurance company refused to settle, I needed to have some impressionable and emotionally-manipulable jurors, not a bunch of analytical science types, so I was in the opposite position of a prosecutor - I needed vibes and emotions to make my case, because there's no clear-cut definition of what an insurance company should have to pay in a particular situation. That's very different than proving that specific elements of a crime were satisfied by a defendant's conduct.

[u/legal_stylist → u/Repulsive_Stock9400]

Im a personal injury attorney myself now, but I did some crim, and I can assure you, prosecutors do not want clear headed people.
On the contrary, the voir dire divisions were very clear: prosecutors want dumber, less educated people with conservative beliefs and our side wanted more educated liberals. Low educated rule followers who liked rigid distinctions versus educated people who gave thoughtful answers.
That’s it, that’s the whole divide.

Now, there were plenty of case specific considerations, but the last thing a prosecutor wants is a person who can engage in nuanced thinking and analysis; they want rule followers who cling to pre-conceived notions like the beut you spouted— the old, “they wouldn’t be here if they weren’t guilty.”

That’s dumb people thinking and it’s what they’re looking for.

Edit to add: Also, it’s very clear you’ve never done criminal work because the “didn’t bring it for no reason” trope ignores the actual reality of the situation. The overcharging is absolutely batshit insane. So, whenever people would ask me about how I could defend “guilty” people, I was able to remind them, that while, yes, very few of my clients were completely and totally “innocent”—the vast majority were, in fact, very much not guilty of many of the charges brought against them.

[u/Scaevus → u/legal_stylist]

the last thing a prosecutor wants is a person who can engage in nuanced thinking and analysis

I have first chaired my fair share of criminal trials, both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney. People who are too dumb to avoid jury service are never going to actually be capable of engaging in nuanced thinking and analysis. In practice, what we'd get are people who THINK they are much smarter than they really are, and make up the law on the spot instead of following the judge's instructions.

You're not wrong that prosecutors prefer rules followers and defense attorneys prefer skeptics, though, that's just the nature of the game.

The overcharging is absolutely batshit insane.

Well, that is the proper strategy. You charge them with every potential crime since it's much easier to drop charges than to add them later on, and it's also a good way to negotiate. You start at a maximalist position so you have something to compromise with.

[u/Repulsive_Stock9400 → u/legal_stylist]

Huh. Have you engaged in training to address your own biases? That's a helpful exercise.

[u/legal_stylist → u/Repulsive_Stock9400]

I’ll ignore the implied insult and just remind you of what you said: “but not so smart that they would resist it”

That’s what prosecutors want; “clear headed” doesn’t enter into it.

[u/Repulsive_Stock9400 → u/legal_stylist]

There's no implied insult, I'm directly telling you that your bias is showing and it's not a good look. Whatever, I don't care what you do.