Poll: Could you be impartial in a police misconduct trial?

[btdt]

I'm not sure I could be impartial. I take that back. If I were in Chicago, or Baltimore, or Cleveland, or Charleston, or Ferguson, or any other place where there is SO MUCH video evidence that the police in these cases are crooked as hell, I wouldn't be impartial. No way.

[Velvetshady]

I totally believe I could be impartial in *a* police misconduct trial. But not in *this* police misconduct trial.

[ESF]

Having sat through a jury selection process where the defendants were protesters charged with "resisting arrest" and rolling my eyes at the stupidity of the police during that time, I think it would be really difficult to sit through something like this and not have my bias come through. I would like to think that it would be different if the police officer is a defendant on trial by the state, instead of the witness for a state. But it's hard to say.

[Velar Fricative]

Yes. I would follow the instructions set forth by the judge and could make a verdict decision I wouldn't personally agree with depending on the specific questions we have to answer.

Had the officer who killed Eric Garner been indicted, I could have been impartial if summoned and selected for the jury (it's local) even though the tragedy angers me. But it all depends on the questions laid out for us. Does that make sense or is my L&O knowledge not reality? (I've been summoned for jury duty twice in my life and neither time have they even bothered to interview me, even though I'd be a really awesome juror!).

[nomad100]

I didn't read the article but I know I would have a hard time being unbiased in a police misconduct case, especially one involving serious misconduct. And I have never even had any run-ins with the law other than a ticket for expired tags.

I know that not all cops are bad and that one rotten apple doesn't mean the whole bushel is bad and all the other cliches but I have seen enough of officers covering for other officers not entirely up and up behavior, slacking on the job, being overly aggressive with the public, etc. that it totally skews my view of law enforcement officers.

[Vespasia]

In general? Maybe. For this particular trial? Nope. And I say that as a city resident who could theoretically be called. Thankfully I think I am still exempt from jury duty since my last trial.

[pixy0stix]

I chose SS, because it would depend on the case. This case? No, I could not be impartial.

[laurenpetro]

I put no but I'm less a "no" than an "I seriously doubt it"

[nikki25]

No, no way. I have had too much contact with shady procedural proccess and conducts that i second guess everything in the PC that I read. No way could I be impartial.

[MarmeeNoir]

Probably, but I don't know for sure.

[josieposy]

I believe I could be for for many of these trials, though I don't envy the people that have to do these high-publicity ones.

[starlily]

I think I could be, based on my work experiences.

[ijack]

Dec 1, 2015 12:59:38 GMT -5 Velvetshady said:

I totally believe I could be impartial in *a* police misconduct trial. But not in *this* police misconduct trial.

This.
I also think with all the technology these days it's going to get harder and harder to be impartial because so much is out about these cases ahead of time.

[penguingrrl]

I don't think I could. A few years ago I might have been able, but as case after case ends up in the public eye I would have trouble being impartial.

[tacosforlife]

Dec 1, 2015 13:14:45 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

For those of you who say no for this case, what if you were presented with evidence during the trial that has not been in the media? For example, based on what I have read about this case, I think 1 or more of the officers is guilty of something ranging from Department violations to possibly murder. But there are 5 officers, correct? Do you think that you could find one or more not guilty, or do you think they are all guilty of the same crime?

I know that I could be impartial in any case because I can put my personal feelings aside. Hell, I have to do that every day in my job.

But that's not the same as being impartial.

My guess is that most people would put more culpability on the ringleader (for lack of a better term), if there is clear evidence that there was one.

And even someone with an anti-police bias could find one or more of the officers not guilty, if the evidence were strong enough.

But impartiality is about going in with existing biases. And I think the nature of this case - guy goes into police van seemingly fine and exits police van with severed spinal cord - lends itself toward having an anti-defendant bias.

I like to think I could be impartial in this case. But the burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and if I were on the jury pool, I'm guessing that it wouldn't take that much from the state to convince me it had met the burden while I'd be expecting some kind of smoking-gun level of evidence from the defendant.

[nikki25]

Dec 1, 2015 13:14:45 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

For those of you who say no for this case, what if you were presented with evidence during the trial that has not been in the media? For example, based on what I have read about this case, I think 1 or more of the officers is guilty of something ranging from Department violations to possibly murder. But there are 5 officers, correct? Do you think that you could find one or more not guilty, or do you think they are all guilty of the same crime?

I know that I could be impartial in any case because I can put my personal feelings aside. Hell, I have to do that every day in my job.

Still no. My career really fogs my ability to be impartial, not necessarily the fact it is a high profile case.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I'll be honest. I don't think I could.

I think there's at least a chance I could be impartial in a random police misconduct trial. Not this one.

And I'm jaded. I spent way too much time doing criminal defense.

[earlgreyhot]

Dec 1, 2015 13:04:26 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Yes. I would follow the instructions set forth by the judge and could make a verdict decision I wouldn't personally agree with depending on the specific questions we have to answer.

I feel the same way. I think I would do a good job of following instructions, though it would be hard because the laws are probably written in such a way that is too protective of the police officer.

[fortnightlily]

In as much as I would for any other kind of trial, yes.

I think I'd be able to come to my verdict based on fairly considering the evidence. But if the case had gotten a lot of media attention I'd just arrive expecting the evidence to point a certain way, though I'd change my mind if it didn't.

The only hitch in a police misconduct trial is how well you can trust that the evidence hasn't been tampered with.

[iammalcolmx]

Dec 1, 2015 13:14:45 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

For those of you who say no for this case, what if you were presented with evidence during the trial that has not been in the media? For example, based on what I have read about this case, I think 1 or more of the officers is guilty of something ranging from Department violations to possibly murder. But there are 5 officers, correct? Do you think that you could find one or more not guilty, or do you think they are all guilty of the same crime?

I know that I could be impartial in any case because I can put my personal feelings aside. Hell, I have to do that every day in my job.

I am a "no" because I don't know this ahead of time so I don't trust myself to be objective. However the bolded changes things a bit for me because I only want you punished if you are guilty of a crime.

[underwaterrhymes]

No.

And I would make it clear I couldn't.

I was a juror when I was in my early twenties and it was a horrible experience that I am still emotional about to this day.

For it to have gotten to the point of a trial, things would have to be pretty bad since this is so often swept under the rug. And if there wasn't enough evidence to convict, it would tear me up to not rule for the victims.

[fortnightlily]

Dec 1, 2015 14:04:26 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 1, 2015 13:51:40 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

In as much as I would for any other kind of trial, yes.

I think I'd be able to come to my verdict based on fairly considering the evidence. But if the case had gotten a lot of media attention I'd just arrive expecting the evidence to point a certain way, though I'd change my mind if it didn't.

The only hitch in a police misconduct trial is how well you can trust that the evidence hasn't been tampered with.

But there had to be enough evidence that wasn't tampered with for the state to bring charges. So if there is enough evidence for charges, shouldn't that be enough for the state to present their case? 

Yeah, I was thinking more on the side of the defense, i.e. "the DNA sample was inconclusive, so you can't prove the cop did it!" when the cop had resources at his disposal to muck with the sample in the first place.

[froggy76]

I think I could. I tend to be skeptical about media coverage, so I would try to keep an open mind and consider all the evidence. I also have sympathy for the fact that cops are put in a lot of difficult situations and may not always respond perfectly.

I do think there is police misconduct in this case (obviously), but I like to think I would be able to take a step back and listen to what really happened and who exactly was at fault. I don't know for sure, though.

[overture]

I like to think I could be impartial in any trial. I also don't think prior knowledge of the subject matter should automatically make a juror's impartiality suspect, either.

I can say I would not be selected for a jury if the death penalty were on the table, though.

[sfy]

I could not serve on a jury for this case without bringing some preexisting bias into the courtroom with me, no. As others have said, that does not definitively mean that I would find the officers guilty, but it may mean that the burden of proof would be higher than it should. Luckily, I will not be tapped to serve in this case.

[sporky]

I like to think I could be impartial enough to listen to evidence and make a determination based on that rather than whatever pre-conceived notions I might have. Of course, that's easier said than done.

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2015 15:09:04 GMT -5 sfy said:

I could not serve on a jury for this case without bringing some preexisting bias into the courtroom with me, no. As others have said, that does not definitively mean that I would find the officers guilty, but it may mean that the burden of proof would be higher than it should. Luckily, I will not be tapped to serve in this case.

Yep this is very well said about how I feel.

I was called to jury duty on a medical malpractice case. As much as I'd like to think I wouldn't be biased, I highly doubt I'd be able to and told them I was in the medical field and ultimately didn't get picked (thankfully).

[Deleted]

Dec 1, 2015 20:17:17 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 1, 2015 20:04:44 GMT -5 @wandering said:

Yep this is very well said about how I feel.

I was called to jury duty on a medical malpractice case. As much as I'd like to think I wouldn't be biased, I highly doubt I'd be able to and told them I was in the medical field and ultimately didn't get picked (thankfully).

But why couldn't you be impartial to a medical malpractice case? This is not being snarky or anything, it is just not how my brain works. Like I am in this field. I do not think for one minute that all officers are bad, corrupt, etc. But I do know that there are bad apples, just like in every other field. And I have no problem calling someone out when I think they are wrong or defending someone when I think they are right (even if it is against popular opinion).

Well the specific case was an obgyn case so even more specific to my knowledge base. Obviously I don't know how the evidence was presented but I'm pretty sure I would have a lot of questions that might not be answered by the evidence. We've definitely been trained/had discussions about how lawyers might phrase things to make physicians look worse in front of a jury, so I would also be thinking about that. And unless I had those questions answered then I think I'd be biased to err on the side of the physician.

Now if it were another specialty that I'm not as familiar with (mostly every other specialty lol) then I probably wouldn't have as many questions or have the same thought process.

[cookiemdough]

Don't all people have some bias though? I think in a case like this those that believe police are beyond reproach are equally dangerous.

[cookiemdough]

Dec 1, 2015 20:44:05 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 1, 2015 20:34:26 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Don't all people have some bias though? I think in a case like this those that believe police are beyond reproach are equally dangerous.

I agree with the bolded. Everyone has a bias, but that doesn't mean that you can't look at the situation objectively and decide on a verdict despite it.

Yes, I agree.