In an ever-increasing Soviet Union style Biden America, we now have a new low where unvaccinated Americans will be banned from jury duty.
I know a lot of you will jump for joy and some of you may even wish you never took the jab just for that benefit, but folks, this is a serious development.
Jury duty is one of the ways we the people keep the government honest. The power of a jury is to determine if what the government is saying the defendant did fits into the definition of the law they claim he broke. More importantly, a juror gets to tell the government that the law the defendant is being tried for breaking is a law that holds up to the standards of our Constitution. That’s some pretty powerful stuff for just sitting in a room and paying attention to a trial.
For the government to tell American citizens that because they do not want to put an experimental vaccine into their body, they no longer have the right to sit on a jury is unamerican.
This week, California US District Judge Edward Davila removed nine unvaccinated potential jurors from the jury pool in the fraud case of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, Reuters reported.
KGO-TV reported that Holmes has been charged with defrauding patients and investors. She claimed that a blood test her company created could diagnose a wide range of ailments, and the entire time she knew it couldn’t. That’s the charge.
Davila, along with the prosecution and the defense attorneys agreeing, said he acted to protect the health of jurors in a trial that could last four months.
You know where this will eventually go when the legal system has begun using the terminology 'The elimination of unvaccinated people'.https://t.co/uUaBoo6xEW
— The Real Joker (@EvilArthurFleck) September 4, 2021
Experts say that if this knuckleheaded judge’s action sets a precedent, then the real loser will be the justice system, which has already taken a big hit now that we have many prosecutors who were funded by George Soros because they won’t prosecute real criminals but focus on political prosecutions instead.
Eliminating jurors for political reasons will make our system of justice all that more vulnerable.
“If you excuse those [unvaccinated] people, you no longer have a representative jury,” said Christina Marinakis, a jury consultant with litigation consulting company IMS.
And she’s right, but the government doesn’t care. The Biden administration wants to eliminate the control group of unvaccinated people so that when vaccinated people start coming down with illnesses that unvaccinated people do not, they can blame COVID for the illnesses and not the vaccine if there are no more unvaccinated people. The idea is to shame and exclude unvaccinated people from everyday events, hoping they will get vaccinated.
Americans who have not gotten the jab hold more critical views of the government and corporate America, according to Marinakis.
“The trend we’ve found consistently across jurisdictions is that people who are unvaccinated tend to have more anti-corporate attitudes,” she said. “Those jurors tend to be distrustful of government bodies, tend to feel things aren’t always what they seem.”
That logic lends credence to the argument that eliminating unvaccinated jurors will pollute the jury pool to the point where a defendant will not have a jury off his peers.
Data has shown there are demographic differences between those who are vaccinated and those who are not, as well as differences in political orientation.
Valerie Hans, a knucklehead professor at Cornell Law School, said the judge’s action makes sense, but the ripple effects will be evident.
“I think it’s a reasonable decision amid the pandemic, but yes, the elimination of unvaccinated people is likely to affect the makeup of the jury pool,” she said.
Then it’s not reasonable. The judge’s actions do not make sense. If he is so worried about jurors, then he could have all jurors sit in a room by themselves where they can watch the trial through video monitors. Instead, the judge upended the system of justice.
Kaspar Stoffelmayr, of the law firm Bartlit Beck, pointed out that the judge’s actions could be grounds for an appeal, but said in this case it might not matter.
“I would not assume that demographic differences, or differences in personal beliefs and attitudes, between vaccinated and unvaccinated jurors would necessarily favor one side or the other in the Holmes case,” he said.
That’s the problem here. You should assume there will be differences in the jury. Jury selection is a science. Law firms hire experts to look at potential jurors and give them their opinion of who would be good or bad for their clients. If the expert says a potential juror would be bad for their client, the lawyer gets to make a peremptory challenge to have that person dismissed. A lot of personal analysis goes into it, so to say that people who do not want to get vaccinated being removed from the jury pool will not make a difference is foolhardy.
The National Center for State Courts warned against weeding out unvaccinated potential jurors.
“Restricting the jury pool to persons who are fully vaccinated may make it more difficult to secure enough prospective jurors to select juries. Along with the coronavirus’ differential impact on people of color, public health experts have noted ongoing challenges in making vaccine distribution accessible to these communities, including higher rates of vaccine hesitancy in these communities,” the office said.
“Excluding persons who are not fully vaccinated may make the jury pool less likely to reflect a fair cross section of the community, which in turn may also increase the risk of jury challenges.”
