This made me RAGE when that info first came out. If the requirement is that all jurors have to be ok with the death penalty, why bother with a trial in the first place?

I’m confused as to how ignorance can be interpreted as impartiality. The jurors weren’t supposed to have known anyone who had been raped either.

It goes further. Jurors can’t be smart, or think for themselves. Every time I told a prosecutor or defense attorney that I have a masters degree in some bullshit liberal arts field, they run like hell and send me home.

So now jurors can’t be a felon, a victim of crime or have an opinion against the death penalty?

Laws are the same no matter the genders/orientations. Each state has different laws about what acceptable. There isn’t a blanket “all teens are OK.” I live in the Northeast. My state says a 15 year old with a 19 year old is OK, but a 14 year old with a 15 year old is not. A nearby state says that 15 is not OK with…

when i served on a jury (for unwanted sexual contact), i disclosed that i was a sexual assault and domestic abuse counselor. no one on either side blinked. i got placed on the jury and was sick to my stomach that somehow this whole thing would get thrown because of that.

But the juror specifically stated that he was not a victim of a crime, and that the relationship was consensual. Given the nature of statutory rape laws in most jurisdictions, and the fact that Easter was a minor at the time, it’s entirely likely that the trial and conviction proceeded without his input and…

I agree. But if the question was actually worded in a “were you a victim of rape” way, I can absolutely see why he never even considered telling the judge, because he just doesn’t consider himself to be a rape victim, especially in light of the fact that apparently the other guy was only prosecuted after his parents…

I saw it coming.

I would question this guy’s ability to be a juror if this was a case of statutory rape like it was with his, since he was underaged but still even after all these years claims that it was a consensual relationship. If that were the case, then yes, kick his ass off the jury, and do it all over again.

But what about, as in this case, the juror believes that he was never the victim of sexual assault because he had a nominally consensual relationship with someone seven years older than him?

I don’t know...I can see both sides of this. I wonder what question was actually asked, because I can see him saying no to the “have you ever been the victim of a crime,” but saying yes to “have you ever been involved in a criminal proceeding where you were named as the victim of a crime” or something like that.

I’m not sure it is misleading. Reports indicate that the juror was 16 when he had a consensual sexual relationship with someone at most 23. It’s definitely creepy, but I absolutely can see the juror’s reason for not answering yes to “were you ever the victim of rape or sexual assault,” because he apparently still…

Yeah I agree. If the issue is avoiding bias, he wasn’t really a victim of the same crime these guys are charged with.

Yes—a mistrial just throws out the results of the trial, and they could re-try the case. By way of clarification, I don’t think that the argument is that a victim of rape would be automatically disqualified to serve on a jury, but that the defense was entitled to know about the potential bias. As much as it sickens me…

How many men and women rape? How statistically likely is it that a rapist is on a jury (obviously an unconvicted one)?

So now jurors can’t be a felon, a victim of crime or have an opinion against the death penalty? Who the fuck is left? Honestly this is bullshit.

What are the latest statistics? 1 in 4-5 women are raped, and 1 in 7-10 men are raped? That disqualifies a large population from jury duty. Doesn’t seem practical.

If these fuckheads get acquitted because of this, it would be so very typical.

new plan America: how about every rape trial has a rape survivor on the jury?