Should These Jury Selection Questions be Allowed to be Asked?

How can they ask these questions differently to weed out a person's true thoughts/feelings and should they restructure the same question in a different way and ask it again to see if the answer changes?

If the juror believes that the election was stolen then structuring a question whereby it asks if you believed the election was stolen should the First Amendment protect that person? See where I'm going?

Ask that question again, but this time ask it in such a way as posing that if a person believed the election was stolen without any evidence for that belief, what then would be their second answer?

a reply to: quintessentone

Restructuring the question from the original OP would give those with a bias the opportunity to hide it, one way or the other.

The way they are worded are pretty cut and dry and, if answered honestly, tell you everything you need to know about the potential jurors

Since when does a belief need evidence to support it? A belief is just an opinion

a reply to: IndieA

Yes. Every trial transcript in the world. Both sides...twist in and out of "I objects" dialog.

We heard some crazy stuff before ..O.J, and Michael. There's courtroom decorum, but once something outlandish is spoken, objects and ruled or over-ruled, it's out there. Too late.

Lawyers, elicit response by statements sworn to...and a few off the wall accusations..

Don't know if thats inference, evidence, hearsay, conjecture. Watch Treasonous Donny's trials...all of them. Say what the hell you want 1st. Then wait for the judge to yell.

Lotta stuff gets out that way..outlandish pointless in-court remarks...

From my Source: Cobb County Superior Court Voir Dire

There's this, which Google AI was quick to share:

No question shall be framed so as to require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the action. Questions calling for an opinion by a juror on matters are improper.

but also this:

Scope of Voir Dire by Counsel
• Either party may examine a prospective juror as to matters which would illustrate any interest of the juror in the case, including:
• Any opinion as to which party should prevail;
• The relationship or acquaintance with the defendant or counsel;
• Any fact or circumstances indicating an inclination, leaning or bias respecting:
• The subject-matter of the action; • Counsel; or • Defendant; Any religious, social or fraternal connections.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: IndieA

Yes. Every trial transcript in the world. Both sides...twist in and out of "I objects" dialog.

We heard some crazy stuff before ..O.J, and Michael. There's courtroom decorum, but once something outlandish is spoken, objects and ruled or over-ruled, it's out there. Too late.

Lawyers, elicit response by statements sworn to...and a few off the wall accusations..

Don't know if thats inference, evidence, hearsay, conjecture. Watch Treasonous Donny's trials...all of them. Say what the hell you want 1st. Then wait for the judge to yell.

Lotta stuff gets out that way..outlandish pointless in-court remarks...

Sure, those are tactics used to sway the jurors. I wonder if the court should have a 'tactics lawyers use to sway the jury' course for the selected jurors before the trial?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Restructuring the question from the original OP would give those with a bias the opportunity to hide it, one way or the other.

The way they are worded are pretty cut and dry and, if answered honestly, tell you everything you need to know about the potential jurors

Since when does a belief need evidence to support it? A belief is just an opinion

To my way of thinking, if someone adopts a belief without any evidence or logical reason, then that belief was adopted somehow...how? Blind faith? Racism? Unconscious bias?

a reply to: quintessentone

Dunno, my friend. When we do utilize free speech, it always has some restriction somewhere too...