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?
First. Unless this whole thing is just worded wrong, a juror doesn't enter a plea....he enters a verdict. Therefore, the jurors' last statement of, "yes", is logically incorrect since the juror doesn't know what, "plea" means.
Second. If the whole thing is just worded wrong, then it's clear that the juror is lying. When asked about entering a guilty verdict, the juror replies that he wouldn't. If this juror used logic and was truthful, he would know that getting onto the jury and casting his, "no" vote, would keep the condemned from being put to death. Since it's implied that the condemned will be facing death, it follows that this is a felony trial. It also follows that all 12 jurors must enter a guilty verdict in order to send a condemned person to death.
If the juror really wanted to keep that from happening, he would've answered the lawyer by saying, "Yes... I would be able to enter a guilty verdict." This would've gotten him onto the jury and no matter who voted for death, his one vote of, "no", would keep the condemned from dying.
Posted by Clark
on 2003-03-13 14:02:25