Fellow Pagan blogger (and trial lawyer) Fiacharrey weighs in on the jury selection for the murder trial of Scott Dyleski. I thought the lawyers were twisting the rights to a jury of one’s peers by eliminating anyone with an interest in Wicca or the goth subculture (another Pagan blogger says it is out and out jury stacking), but Fiacharrey says this is just the give and take involved in ensuring a relatively fair jury trial.

“When it comes down to it, there are really only two general ways that are fair to select a jury. The first would be a truly random selection, and whatever you get is what you get. That would be fair, but most people wouldn’?t like to spin the wheel quite that much. The other choice is to have some process by which jurors are reasonably selected and anyone with unfair biases somehow weeded out…So, yes, Wiccans will be eliminated in occult-themed cases. So will “God-Fearin’ Bible-Thumpers” because the Defense gets to de-select jurors too. Both sides have to burn up their limited allotment of free strikes, called “peremtory challenges” in Louisiana, to do so. The defense attorney will certainly try to eliminate anyone too conservative or too easily swayed by the State’s witnesses. In other cases, the people “discriminated” against might be Mormons, might be Methodists, might be used car dealers. It’s not jury stacking, it’s jury selecting.”

While this case may not be “jury stacking” I’m still not convinced he is being tried by a jury of one’s peers. It seems these sorts of acceptable tactics are being used to not only eliminate extremists (“I can tell he is guilty by looking at him”) but to eliminate anyone with anything resembling a sympathetic knowledge of the cultures being discussed in the trial. Isn’t this current method only a few shades better than the days of blatant jury-rigging (as in the mob days, or during the civil rights struggle)? Is justice being served when cases are being decided by the uninformed?

Tags: Paganism