Read Online A Fool for a Client by David Kessler - Free Book Online

jurors ’ records of previous jury service. Daniel Abrams had records of the entire panel before him and he knew who were the “convicting” jurors and who were the “acquitting” ones. James Lawson was a convicting juror. He had served once before on a jury in a trial for fraud in which the defendant was found guilty. It was a different sort of case. But it showed that Lawson had no qualms or hesitation about finding a person guilty, knowing that the person was going to have to serve a custodial sentence.
    “Acceptable to the prosecution,” said Abrams and sat down, confident that Justine would find no grounds to challenge for cause and knowing that she would have to use up one of her peremptory challenges to block him.
    Richard Parker was staring at his own records, deep in thought. He too knew about Lawson ’ s voting record in his past jury service, knew also that he had to find a way to get Lawson off the jury. Jurors tend to follow patters – patterns that speak of their character in the same way as their voting patterns in an election. Some tend to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Others tend to put their faith in the police. But he could do nothing without Justine ’ s consent. The judge had made it clear that she was running the show. And Justine had made it clear that she didn ’ t want Parker ’ s help.
    Unless you ’ re defending a client who took what the average American would see as legitimate revenge, you have to pick jurors who tend to acquit if you want to have any chance of getting your client off. When the DA decides to go to trial and doesn ’ t offer or solicit a deal, you can bet your bottom dollar that the odds are overwhelmingly in his favour.
    Justine rose slowly.
    “Mr. Lawson, would you classify yourself as a conservative?”
    “I ’ m a Libertarian,” replied Lawson matter-of-factly.
    “Would you like to qualify that answer?” Justine followed up.
    “No.”
    Normally, questions about jurors politics or religion are ill-advised, as they might tend to alienate the prospective juror, and sometimes others on the panel as well. However such questions are permitted, and the lawyer or pro se defendant is free to ask them at his or her peril. In some cases they are even necessary, because of the high political or religious profile of the case. When Rabbi Meir Kahane was murdered for example, the liberal Jewish lawyer defending the man who was caught running from the scene with the murder weapon was able to secure an acquittal by using peremptory challenged to secure an African-American jury and then repeating ad nauseum the false assertion that Rabbi Kahane hated blacks.
    The present case also had political implications. It was a trial of a girl for the pre-meditated murder of a man whom many Irish-Americans and others thought of as a freedom fighter. But there was no easy answer to the question of what sort of juror she needed. A juror with little knowledge of international affairs might believe in the freedom fighter myth that the IRA had successfully propagated in much of America .
    An intelligent juror might see through the freedom fighter myth, yet not approve of any vigilante action, seeing it as a threat to the stability of society. A liberal might see her as a girl from a privileged background with no excuse for taking to crime. A conservative might see her as a threat to law and order. An Irish American might see her as the enemy. A Jew might feel the need to bend over backward to show that he or she was not biased in her favour.
    Justine appeared to think to herself for a moment.
    “So what do you think of, say... Joe McCarthy?”
    “He stank,” replied Lawson, flatly.
    The delay in his reply had been too brief for him to have been weighing up his answer in his mind.
    Abrams was staring at Justine with tense suspicion.
    “I notice you don ’ t pull your punches Mr. Lawson,” said Justine, looking him full in the face.
    “I didn ’ t get where I am today by