[jisaacstone]

I don't understand the questions. Who is asking these questions? Am I legally obligated to answer? Is that really how jury selection works? Seems a bit ridiculous that they are allowed to ask such specific (and often irrelevant to the case at hand) questions.

[bcbrown]

Read the associated NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/nyregion/for-service-on-so...

[Roedou]

The UK court system just picks 12 jurors, and that's the jury - no discussion or debate unless there's a significant conflict of interest.

Is that so bad?

[jisaacstone]

interesting. Thanks!

[vqc]

The judge and lawyers ask these questions during a process called voir dire.

The judge and lawyers are concerned about making sure each juror is unbiased. How you answer question A regarding topic B could be very revealing of your bias towards the case even if neither question A nor topic B have anything to do with the case. People often lie on question X on topic Y (questions and topics more directly related to the case), or their answers often don't reflect how they actually act in the jury room.

[mturmon]

And just to go a bit farther, because it's interesting -- either side can toss a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge).

But, if you demonstrate that you're clearly prejudiced to one side or the other, you can be tossed outright, and that toss does not count against the allowed number of peremptory challenges.

When I've done voir-dire, one side or the other has always booted me (and you know which), so I have some idea what set them off. I think the analytical mind and the independent streak will usually be a problem for one side or the other.

[wvenable]

For contrast, in Canada, lawyers are not allowed to ask a potential juror any questions. But, just from looking at you, the lawyer from either side can dismiss you.