Originally Posted by bigbenaugust
I thought it was funny. I want to say they dumped about 5 or so of us that way (out of 40 or whatever) and then went on to the questions.
Had these jurors previously asked to be excused due to hardship?
In every trial that I have done, the judge initially questions the jurors. The judge asks a number of basic questions, including can you be "fair and impartial in this case?"
After that, voir dire is opened up to the attorneys. In a criminal case the defendant's attorney then does voir dire for cause (the only time in a criminal proceeding when the defense goes first.) Then the prosecutor does voir dire for cause. Then both side get to use their peremptory challenges to eliminate jurors.
One time I chose the first panel out of the box, without dumping any jurors. The defense used all of his peremptories. Every time he did and a new juror chosen, I would stand up and accept the panel as presently constituted. It drove the defense attorney nuts.
The jury came back with a G verdict in less than 10 minutes. The jury foreman asked me why I did not kick any prospective jurors and I told him that the case was so clear cut, anyone would vote to convict. He smiled and said that was the very first thing they all commented back in the jury room...about how confident I was about the case and how I trusted them to do the right thing. I
don't recommend doing that on a regular basis, but sometimes you have to go with your instincts and trust your evidence.