surrendering one's passphrase to authorities

[David Shaw]

On Mar 4, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> David Shaw wrote:
>> Indeed, and also (in the US at least), the attorneys for each side
>> can (to a limited degree that varies from situation to situation)
>> remove people from the "potential juror" list after interviewing them
>> (a "Voir Dire" challenge).
>
> Voir dire is the name given to the interview process, not to the
> strikings.

As I've said, I am not a lawyer, but the term "Voir dire challenge"  
did, in fact, come from a real lawyer who I discussed my half-written  
email with before sending it.  Simply Googling the term shows it in  
rather common use.

> It's true that lawyers will remove a juror with actual knowledge about
> the subject matter -- but more than that, lawyers will remove jurors
> with actual knowledge.  If you show an ability to think critically and
> independently, the lawyers will move heaven and earth to remove you  
> from
> the jury pool.

It's not quite that simple.  My lawyer friend indicates that this can  
cut both ways.  If one lawyer thought they had a very strong case,  
they might actually want a smart or knowledgeable person on the jury,  
going with the idea that this person would be able to explain the  
complex issues to the rest of the jury.  Which of course may cause the  
opposing attorney to challenge that person.  And so on, and around and  
around.  This is why jury consultants make the big bucks.

We're now rather off-topic for GPG (and especially for a list that  
serves more than the US).  Let's let this thread go, please.

David