One jury consultant said the dismissal of two seated jurors on Thursday morning could point to larger problems within the jury selection process as a whole.
One sworn-in juror was dismissed after expressing concerns that part of her identity was made public by the media. A second empaneled juror was excused after prosecutors questioned the truthfulness of the answers he gave to questions from attorneys on Tuesday.
Consultant Carolyn Koch said both of these cases underscore that this is “no ordinary trial,” but the act of disqualifying people after you’ve vetted them in court is a “symptom of a problem.”
She said in her experience with other high-profile cases involving political issues or serious crimes, written questionnaires were used. This allowed lawyers to have time to review the answers and vet people in advance before the actual jury selection process began in open court.
“They had time in advance to really scour the landscape to make sure that on the day of jury selection, people are properly vetted, so you are not going to have surprises like that,” Koch told CNN.
Using an oral questionnaire, by contrast, doesn’t allow attorneys to learn much about prospective jurors beyond what they disclose themselves, Koch said.
Background: Earlier, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass notified the court that his team found information that called into question the veracity of answers provided by the second dismissed juror. A man with the same name as the juror was arrested in the 1990s for tearing down political advertisements, according to prosecutors. It’s unclear if this is the reason the juror was excused, or if he is the same person prosecutors said was arrested. The conversation that led to his dismissal was not public.
