The M.H.L. Article 10 Trial: Jury Selection

Even though it is not classified as a criminal trial, when your client faces what essentially amounts to life imprisonment without parole, it sounds like a criminal trial to me. Especially when the possible life without parole punishment follows the completion of more than a decade in prison for the commission of a rather horrible crime, it sounds even more like a criminal trial.

The assistant attorney general prosecuting the case appeared to be a competent lawyer who viewed his mission of having the jury find that my client possessed a mental abnormality that made it likely that he would be unable to resist the compulsion to commit further sex offenses a divine imperative. Unfortunately, having been a prosecutor for several decades left him with myopia and an extreme case of tunnel vision that enabled him to see in black and white rather than in color with shades of gray. Notwithstanding this medical anomaly that he suffered from, Peter Prosecutum was nevertheless a likeable gentleman for the most part. Unlike a very large percentage of prosecutors, he understood well the concept of professional courtesy and professional ethics.

Peter expertly explained that he could go with just about any jury as long as they were not Manhattan liberals. He explained that Manhattan liberals were not good for him as they frequently viewed the cases as being unfair as a function of the fat that the defendant, oops, I mean the respondent had already done his time. He said that he would take my wife and best friends as jurors since everybody hates sex offenders. Curiously, when my son's religious teacher of many years, a world renowned rabbinic scholar, turned out to be on the venire, he rejected him. Too bad, he would have been a fair juror.

It was the most difficult jury selection I had ever been through. Out of fifty or so panel members, at least a dozen either had been sexually molested or had a close family member who had been sexually molested. Nevertheless, we eventually were able to pick a jury that was fair, although certainly not sympathetic to my client. They faced the difficult task of having different burdens of proof with respect to various aspects of the case. On the issue of whether or not the designated felony my client plead guilty to was sexually motivated, the prosecution had a burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt." On the mental abnormality issues, the prosecutor had a burden of clear and convincing evidence.

While very few jurors like to be on a jury that keeps them away from whatever else they would otherwise be doing for a week or so, this jury seemed especially challenged by the assignment they faced. Clearly, the best juror was a third year law student who definitely demonstrated that he understood his responsibility as a juror and would faithfully execute his obligation to the respondent and the prosecution. For the most part, the jurors appeared to be fairly fair and willing to not prejudge my client. My client and I both felt that their individual promises to be fair were honestly made.

In our next installment, we will examine the experts for the state and the respondent.