As an attorney, friends and family members often ask me about my opinion on various legal issues in the news. I am always happy to provide a little insight, but it’s sometimes amusing how uninformed many otherwise intelligent people are about the legal system. While some lawyers enjoy watching shows like LA Law and Boston Legal, I don’t really enjoy that kind of show because it is so unrealistic. Of course, everything in “tv land” is more interesting that real life, so why should the legal system be any different?
One current event of particular interest to people is the sad, sordid tale of Michael Vick, the now disgraced former quarterback for the Falcons (as if being the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons isn’t disgrace enough on its own.) I’ve never represented anyone charged with dog fighting, and I’m one of the few Georgia lawyers that has never represented a professional football player, but I do have a pretty good feel for the general workings of the legal system.
Several people have forwarded to me, without comment, the above visual depiction of “Michael Vick’s Jury,” which is made up of an assortment of angry cartoon dogs. Though I understand people’s ire about Michael Vick’s dogfighting empire, I am sorry to have to disappoint them: there is no way Michael Vick would ever face a jury so comprised.
Setting aside the obvious, to wit, that cartoon dogs aren’t human and therefore not citizens, a jury must be impartial. Since a person charged with a crime is cloaked with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, prospective jurors are vetted through a process known as jury selection. During jury selection, the attorneys are permitted,either directly or through the court, to ask questions of the panel to uncover any particular biases they may have. Would the fact that a juror is a dog mean that he would be disqualified from sitting on a dog fighting case? Probably not in and of itself.
Attorneys in the jury selection process may strike unfavorable jurors in two ways. For cause or via a peremptory strike. Though the standard varies state to state, a strike for cause may be made when a legal bias is shown in the potential juror. For example, in a criminal case, a law enforcement officer may always be struck for cause by the defendant. Furthermore, if the juror admits that he cannot be fairminded, he may be struck for cause. For example, someone who believe all people charged with crimes are guilty, is not fairminded and may be struck for cause. Usually, however, the prosecutor will be given the opportunity to rehabilitate the juror by asking questions to clear up the bias. The prosecutor will often ask something like this: “Given how strongly you feel about drug crimes, do you think you could listen to the evidence and render a verdict based on the evidence that you hear, rather than on your personal feelings?” Normally the juror gets back in line and the motion to strike for cause is denied.
Once the jury panel is cleared of for cause strikes, the attorneys for each side are given a predetermined number of peremptory strikes. These are strikes which may be used to get rid of potentially unfavorable jurors who are not so biased as to be subject to a strike for cause. Any reason is permissible (with one exception), and ordinarily the attorney need not state his reason. An example of a peremptory strike would be striking a potential juror who is a member of MADD from the panel in a DUI case, or a very conservative “church lady” in a drug case.
The one exception to the general rule deals with race. Peremptory strikes may not be used to strike a particular racial group from the jury. When the prosecutor in a case strikes black potential juror, he will nearly always be called upon to state a non-discriminatory reason for the strike.
So, in sum, I think it’s highly unlikely that Michael Vick’s jury (had he gone to trial) would have resembled the assorted cast of angry cartoon dogs shown in that picture. I speculate that a defense attorney worth his salt would be able to strike, at a minimum, two or three of those jury-dogs in favor of folks more defendant-friendly.
One other thought: why did Goofy make this jury, but not Pluto? In the Anthropomorphic world of Disney, why does Goofy wear clothes and drive a car, while Pluto is the pet dog of a large mouse?
