/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JEUL2B5V7BJCFMRTKGOS3ZSN4Y.jpg "Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ law breaches international rights standards – European rights body")
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/DYF5BFEE4JNPJLNCVUO65UKU6U.jpg "The curious case of a map and a disappearing Taiwan minister at U.S. democracy summit")
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/UF7R3GWJGNMQBMFSDN7PJNRJ5Y.jpg "Blinken touts deeper U.S. engagement amid concern over ‘aggressive’ China")
[ad_1]
Joel Cohen
This article is not about the impact a conviction can have if a juror lies and is discovered during a voir dire or in response to a jury questionnaire. It’s about the duty of a lawyer who believes the juror lied and who tries to sit on the lie that shows the juror is prejudiced against the criminal accused – the lawyer who intends to just disclose it, if the judgment is against his client.
In fact, the ability for attorneys to learn in real time that a juror is lying voir dire has increased significantly in recent years – the internet, and social media in particular, is easy to reveal what was previously completely private. Jurors, like everyone else, usually don’t even realize how they portray their behavior and words “out there” in a way that can ultimately lead to lawyers finding out about them as soon as they join the jury. While a legal team’s ability to “research” juries may not be as accessible as portrayed on the television show “Bull” (if only those people were actually available), experienced lawyers and their teams are capable of doing things do that were not possible before.
[ad_2]
