Vetting potential jurists - Assignment Example

Vetting Potential Jurists As a juror in this rape case the major facts of the case are that while genetic evidence demonstrates sexual relations have occurred, there is no evidence for struggle. The defendant has decided to not testify in this case. In attempting to develop an opinion on the defendant’s decision not to testify there are a few things I considered. One of the primary challenges of juror selection are “preconceived ideas about the guilt or innocence of the defendant” (pg. 304).

While I recognize that this is a prominent issue and would attempt to retain an unbiased perspective on the decision not to testify I also recognize that the law addresses the question of witnesses not testifying; in these regards, it indicates that, “if he does not testify or…he fails to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the most probable” (pg. 337). In these regards, while the law indicates that the jury should refrain from judging the defendant’s decision not to testify, they are permitted to make decisions based on the nature of the evidence that is made unclear or indicating guilt by this decision.

Even as I recognize that this is the law, it’s difficult to envision a reason for the defendant not testifying if they are truly innocent. To some extent then, in the defendant’s decision not to testify I feel there is not an admission of guilt, but another piece of evidence that does not help the defense’s case.