a lunch break and I sat with 3 other women. One was married to a law enforcement officer. She got picked for the jury! Murderer was convicted in just 3 days.

Seems too late at that point.

that s/he will not listen to the facts and has already made up his/her mind. When the alternate is seated, the jury has to start deliberations from the beginning and ignore everything they discussed prior to the replacement.

then that juror is removed. Because the juror previously stated under oath that s/he would consider all the evidence and now announces s/he won't.

Thanks!

and agree with the defense's explanation of events. I dont see how that person can be removed.

in jeopardy. Could be their first time.

They need get them out now during jury selection.

As long as they';ve heard the same evidence, its not a problem.

Any good prosecutors will have their people comb through them to find any posts that could contradict any false claims by a prospective juror.

And almost everyone these days have some kind of social media presence.

Hopefully Trump's lawyers run out of theirs early.

Beta types etc. Your opinion doesn't matter if you're not going to force it on the group. At some point, they determined that you were going to be able to sway other jurors and they didn't like it and you were dismissed.

I guess I'll never find out what goes on in the jury room.

If the question had been specifically "social media," would you have felt compelled to include DU? It is, after all an online forum--something "online media" would surely include, but do you consider DU to be "social media?"

I've been asked this in jury voir dire questionnaires twice and to be honest, I specifically do not use social media (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok) to avoid such issues as well as with employers or related... Since the only registration I have ever had was a long-defunct FB account under my dog's name (never used to post but merely to access content occasionally) I felt okay claiming none to minimal access and no accounts. But had I been asked about online media in general, I guess I'd have to include DU and that seems inappropriate since nearly all of us post anonymously.

Fortunately, those who craft such questions are typically sufficiently poor with language or understanding so as to give me a loophole, but I was just curious how you interpreted it.

BTW, if my work/background doesn't immediately get me excluded (not intentionally) then my strong, albeit not extreme views on use of guns certainly will. Unbeknownst to me my last call for jury duty was for a murder trial wherein the defendant had argued for years with his elderly neighbor and one day following a verbal altercation went home to get his assault rifle and shot him dead--none of which I had any clue whatsoever. When I started being questioned about views on guns, I probably started off pretty noncontroversial, saying I felt guns were appropriate for self-defense --but then (unknowingly stepped in it) emphasized that self defense did not mean non-imminent life-threatening danger--especially for those who go back to a car or home to get the gun before returning to use it. OH, MY. That was apparently exactly what had happened and the defense attorney lost all the blood flow to his face. They then went into chambers (in middle of voir dire) and the next thing I knew a very pissed off judge indicated the trial would be rescheduled pending a psych eval. (Apparently the defense was to be self-defense, but I'd inadvertently shown the entire jury pool how ridiculous that would be-- ) All because of that uppity potential juror anticipating their strategy. LOL (Two years later, the trial was held and he was duly convicted).