Via Lowering the Bar comes some entertaining voir dire responses occurring during the recent R. Kelly trial in Chicago, as described in a Chicago Tribune article:
- Suggesting (especially given the facts of the R. Kelly case) that the age of consent should be lowered to puberty, as "nature" intended;
- Pausing for a sufficiently long period of time after being asked if you could give the defendant a fair trial;
- Praising the defendant, such as by calling him a "musical genius." (Asked to come up with something negative about R., this potential juror could only say, "Um, he and Jay-Z don't get along?")
- Stating, in what was called a "perfectly worded response," that "I believe Mr. Kelly is guilty of the charges due to what I have read in the papers, and the fact that he was indicted by the grand jury further validates my beliefs." Not coincidentally, this potential juror is a legal secretary.
- Best: combining the suggestion that you would never convict with a reference to 9-11: "R. Kelly may have led the Taliban in attacking us on 9-11, but you can't prove it." Well, I could if I had it on film, I think.
Comments