Ethics

If you know, and publicly acknowledge, that you are an impartial juror... or judge... or investigator...

Should you, ethically, recuse yourself from a given public judgment?

Would "we" allow the selection of jurors in any trial who publically state that they have made up their mind before the trial has begun.

You are already guilty, or innocent, of the allegation before the trial even begins...

Does that in any way support the rule of law?

You are mixing meanings, I think.

First you offer an impartial person, and then ask a question on a person that is partial.

Just a tad confusing. Regardless.

Any lawyer who accepted a juror that had made up his or her mind ahead of time would be delinquent in their duty if they accepted such a person.

Yes such a person should recuse themselves.

Regards
DL

Yes... that was a typographical error on my part.

The 1st line was supposed to read:

If you know, and publicly acknowledge, that you are not an impartial juror... or judge... or investigator....

My bad.

when lawyer ask a junior a question, somewhat relate to the trail. if his client has been in the news, before the trail. the juror already aware what he or she done. the juror is probably made up his or her mind already.

the question is can the juror separate his feelings and his or her state of mind that they are under, before either protector or the lawyer pick her or him to serve.

A good lawyer, hopefully, would pick people who believe half of what they see and none of what they hear, without study.

Regards
DL

with small trails that not criminal overtones like small claim courts. which is difference major trails like murder ad robberies. like judge judy and other judge turkeys on daytime tv.

like small trails that not prejudice, in sense, like murder. which juniors are prone to react to the color of the skin, or race of the accuser. it would harder to have these feelings come back at first. whether the junior really truly bias through the trail or is hard tell by anyone.