Click to Enlarge
As you stand before the judge, you hear your opposing counsel say “your honor we have already addressed that issue, there is no need for those questions. The jury panel has already been instructed on the law.” The judge looks at you and in a low voice says “counsel your response?”
“Your honor, I am unclear as to the prosecutor’s concern. As previously stated, I would merely like the court to ask the panel two very straightforward questions”:
- If you had to vote right now, without hearing any of the evidence, who here would vote Chris GUILTY? Please raise your hand, if you would vote GUILTY right now?
- Conversely, if you had to vote right now, without hearing any of the evidence, who here would vote Chris NOT GUILTY? Please raise your hand, if you would vote NOT GUILTY right now?
Your honor, everyone agrees that Chris is presumed innocent. We all agree the burden of proof is on the State. Simply asking the jury panel if they can demonstrate that they understand these fundamental concepts is something I would think the prosecution, the court, and my client would want to ensure.
The judge gives you a quizzical look and says “I see your point counsel. However, these questions might require that we bring back every juror on the panel for individual questioning.” After a deep breath, you look at the judge and calmly say: “you are correct your honor, we might have to do that.” However, that is a “getting-it-done” issue versus a “getting-it-done-right” issue. The judge looked at you and said “very well counsel,” and then asked your questions.
When asked who here, if you had to vote right now, without hearing any evidence, would vote Chris NOT GUILTY? No one raised their hand; Not even the lawyer who was in the group of potential jurors. Consequently, the judge tells the panel that everyone should have raised their hand when asked this question. As anticipated, several people did have to be called in for individual questioning. However, they all now understood the presumption of innocence.