How exactly does this work? How do they determine someone to be impartial? If they weed out people for having sympathy but keep people who don’t, aren’t they making that jury partial to finding him guilty?
The jury is supposed to be unbiased, i.e. not favoring one side or the other. Obviously, it’s impossible to get a jury that’s completely impartial, especially in a case that’s as high-profile as this one, but they have to try.
They ask the jurors questions and then each side has the opportunity to remove ones that they deem problematic.
How exactly does this work? How do they determine someone to be impartial? If they weed out people for having sympathy but keep people who don’t, aren’t they making that jury partial to finding him guilty?
The jury is supposed to be unbiased, i.e. not favoring one side or the other. Obviously, it’s impossible to get a jury that’s completely impartial, especially in a case that’s as high-profile as this one, but they have to try.
They ask the jurors questions and then each side has the opportunity to remove ones that they deem problematic.
That’s the quiet part out loud. They want a jury that will convict him.