Robert: Sorry, ain’t buyin’ it .
She couldn’t be impartial because SHE’S AGAINST CRIME? Look, there were plenty of people there who made up some story for the sake of beating jury duty—but no one in that room believed she couldn’t be impartial in that particular case because SHE WAS AGAINST CRIME.
If she couldn’t be impartial because she had prosecuted too many cases of a similar nature—as one potential juror (a district attorney) argued—then fine. If she couldn’t be impartial because she was herself the victim of the crime the defendant was being tried for, and the memories were too raw—understandable. If she couldn’t treat a police officer like any other witness because she had been a repeated target of police harassment or brutality, that too would have proved very effective. (As it did in at least two cases.)
If she just wanted out because she was otherwise occupied or courtrooms gave her the creeps (strange choice of profession, then, no?), then make up a story about a sick relative or chronic pain or her English being questionable (which it was). Sad, but so it goes.
But because SHE WAS AGAINST CRIME?
Who should take her seriously as a lawyer when she is willing to state publicly that BEING AGAINST CRIME is a fit reason not to sit as a juror? Where then shall we go for jurors—the psych ward at Bellevue? Should only sociopaths be summoned to jury duty? Shall every voir dire feature a cast of anarchists and nihilists?
I would think that this recent law grad’s burgeoning reputation as a member of the legal profession would have played some role in informing a more credible excuse than that SHE WAS AGAINST CRIME.
But maybe it’s just me . . .
