No, jurors have to swear to tell the truth when answering questions during jury selection. However, in practice if you express any reservations about police testimony you will very likely be struck from the jury by the DA.
My own limited experience on a jury is that, because of the way jurors are selected, they tend to be fairly deferential to authority (especially the judge's authority). Arguing for jury nullification or any similar concept is at a minimum going to freak your fellow jurors out, and I wouldn't be surprised if in practice they might ask the judge to kick you off the jury and use one of the alternates (regardless of whatever the legality of the situation calls for).
> However, in practice if you express any reservations about police testimony you will very likely be struck from the jury by the DA
That's not my experience, and mere reservations about the credibility of police wouldn't usually justify a challenge for cause, and prosecutors have a finite number of peremptory challenges. (Now if you say cops are all liars and everything they say must be disregarded, sure, that’ll probably get you tossed.)
As far as i understand it a jury is supposed to be composed of one's "peers", but the people the parent describes strike me as way off the american norm.
That is not the meaning of the word peer in this case. The concept of a jury of peers differs from the King being the jury. It refers to citizens as peers not people with red hair, the same skin color, or socioeconomic background as peers.
Jurors are asked if they will treat the word of law enforcement as always true.
Jurors are disqualified if they don't say yes.
Jurors are sworn, as you say, to tell the truth.
Presumable jurors get punished if they end up acting counter to their previous word?
Thus, jurors that end up on the bench are forced by law to act as if every word by law enforcement is true, even if it contradicts physical reality. No?
During jury selection, the prosecutor and the defense attorney get to interview each potential juror. Both the prosecutor and the defense can eliminate potential jurors based on their answers. I believe they are allowed an unlimited number of challenges "for cause" and a limited number of challenges without cause.
If a juror stated that they believed that the word of law enforcement were always true, the defense attorney would almost certainly challenge them for cause, as that is clear bias, and they would not be selected for the jury.
In practice it's a balancing act, where the prosecution wants jurors who trust law enforcement and the defense wants jurors who are skeptical of law enforcement.
It is illegal to punish a juror for the decision they make during a trial. This is often referred to as "jury nullification" (or rather, is an important part of jury nullification).
> Jurors are asked if they will treat the word of law enforcement as always true. Jurors are disqualified if they don't say yes.
Realistically, jurors will instead be challenged for cause by the defense if they do say yes to that question.
They might be challenged by the prosecution if they indicate a bias against police testimony (either for cause or as a peremptory challenge, depending on the details and the prosecutor and the judge.)
> Thus, jurors that end up on the bench are forced by law to act as if every word by law enforcement is true, even if it contradicts physical reality. No?
No. If that were the case, there would be no need for evidence, a judge, a jury, or a trial. "Just ask the cops" is not how this system works.
Remember you’re reading a thread of some folks on the internet that come from a similar background and seem to have opinions absolutely inconsistent with reality IMO, based on my experience.
Both sides look for jurors who have bias where they will come with a pre-shared opinion. The last jury I was on included a former US Attorney, an insurance investigator and a NAACP regional director. We were asked to answer questions honestly and nobody had access to our process.
I’ve been on 3 juries, and in 2/3 we partially or fully acquitted a defendant based on many factors. Frankly, in each case I walked away with an appreciation that the system can work.
