It’s not on the juror to decide their own bias. They have a whole science on how attorneys dismiss potential jurors. They usually ask something like “is there a reason that you don’t think you would be able to be an impartial juror.” That’s your catchall. Again, you can consider BLM important in your life, and take a situational set of facts and come to an opinion. 11 of the 12 jurors were ready to convict after closing. It took hours to switch the undecided to guilty.NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:39 amInteresting. I always thought that if you leaned heavily one way or the other, you were supposed to remove yourself as a juror. But that was like 15+ years ago when I was informed about a lot of that stuff.vega wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:07 amAbsolutely not. You don't get tabula rasa jurors, you get a jury of your peers. If the defense didn't filter out this juror in voir dire , then that's on them. You can both believe that Black Lives Matter, and be on a jury where you are committed to be impartial. For the Roger Stone case, there was a MAGA juror that kept a MAGA hat in her car, and spouted Trump bullshit all over the news hours after the trial was over. But you know what, she also gave a guilty verdict and went against her political leaning. You need to trust juries to do the right thing. They often do.NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:55 am Problematic in such a public case as this one was..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chauvin-juro ... 18703.html
I also learned in law school that people with a known bias (hate cops, BLM folks) tend to be the most thorough jurors, as they don't want to be the one that creates a situation for a successful appeal, so they make extra sure they dot their t's and lick their i's. Plus, Americans view trials as entertainment. It's much different for the jury. They understand their actions are important and a person's life is essentially at stake.