In the jury selection phase of a murder trial, one of the attorneys asked a prospective juror:

"Would you be able to enter a guilty verdict if you knew that such a verdict would condemn the defendant to death?"

The person replied: "No. I beleive that human life is the most important thing, and must be preserved above all else."

The lawyer asked: "So you will hold to this even though it may keep you off this jury?"

"Yes," the person replied.

How did the lawyer know he was lying?

(In reply to by )

(Sorry, hit the enter key by mistake last time.)

A person who believed in protecting human life above all else might not admit this, just so he could get on the jury and thereby save that person from a death sentence. However, if the person did not think through the implications of admitting this belief to the lawyer (the implications being that he would most likely be excused from jury duty and miss his opportunity to prevent a death sentence), he could make both statements in complete honesty. In short, he may not be lying.

Posted by Bryan on 2003-03-13 08:30:26