The whole jury would have to be made up of CEOs to achieve that. Any lawyer, even the worst one, could argue that they aren't his peers making the selection invalid.
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
66 points (97.1% liked)
No Stupid Questions
44477 readers
565 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Here’s a question: how many people making more than $200,000/year or who are independently wealthy actually serve on a jury?
I ask this because every jury pool I’ve been in was made up of working class people. Those too poor don’t vote and so aren’t on their lists, and those too rich always seem to have acceptable reasons to be excused, if they’re ever pooled in the first place.
it was actually reverse here in the west, recently i sat in a jury pool, they chose mostly the 100-200k+/year people(mostly tech), they knew they had the most FREE TIME. the ones that dint have actual potential biases or a language barrier, like being a lawyer from germany, knowing law enforcement or dealt with them, or somehting similar to the defendant. there was sjw antifa type, but they really wanted to keep her in the juror pool.
they just need some boomers or a rich jurors to achieve the same thing as a jury pool for ceos would.
they also would need to find 3-6 alternate jurors too, so its actually 18 jurors, just in case 1 of the 12 is too biased. i sat in vore dire in sept for juror selection, there was initially 100-200ppl before vore dire, they managed to reduce it o less than 60 by the next day, and then half that after that. they will spend 1 or several days of questioning each potential juror(it takes the whole day).
In a high profile case like this, vore dire would likely go on for more than a week, if not longer.
and most people around me are into tech so high income earners(only a few of us are not that well off), they know which ones will be okay to be in the juror(you guessed it the tech people).
theres a probably they will choose older people 55+ but not too old like 70, since htey are automatically excused from jury duty. more than likely they will seek out someone that hadnt watched the news or asking if they see murder as a prosecutable crime without mentioned luigi murder situation.
So if you're in tech and spell that poorly are you purposefully avoiding autocorrect/spell check? No shade, I'm legitimately about to have an aneurysm reading some of your comments.
Feasible
The number of people who think that healthcare in the USA is just about perfect is evidently quite high - or the situation would change. So, it probably is easier than you think. There’s a lot of healthy people out there.
healthy
* not sick yet
Everybody gets sick evtl. and if health care isn't available chances are it won't get better or it'll leave permanent marks.
I have a friend with lupus who votes Trump. She is very, very ill and will be bankrupt soon.
Very good point.
Actually, even if you go national, very few people like our system (something like 20% iirc?). And in NY? Fat chance.
You've got Citizens United, so both parties are pretty much in the pockets of insurance. They'll just ignore that desire until more Luigis show up.
That’s also an outlook that needs to change. The billionaires want to keep you just happy enough and just nihilistic enough that you don’t revolt.
feasebal
Well, that's a new one
Is it even foosball...
Yeah just get non-Americans.
They managed to find enough people who didn't already realise that trump is a lying, cheating pile of shit whip doesn't have an honest bone in his body for his trial.
trump also was making death threats, through his magats against the jurors too.
Yes, people who haven't had insurance or people who have it but don't use it because they don't know they can.
Both of those are screwed over by the healthcare system and the companies perpetrating it. If you cant afford healthcare or don't understand it because it is to convoluted, that is a result of the policies of healthcare providers.
I don't think that would be a hard requirement. If somebody can explain how they will be fair despite a negative experience with an insurance company and the prosecution is okay with it, then they can serve.
Prosecution will strike them. Next.
It's often not that simple or easy, especially if someone explains they can still be impartial. The judge and defense are involved too, the prosecution doesn't always get what they want.
Peremptory challenge, no reason needed. It's one of the six I get for the case. Next.
Seems like you got it all figured out then.
Feasebal is my new favourite word.
Thank you fine sir.
You don't have not-have an opinion on the US healthcare system, you just have to claim that your opinion on the healthcare system won't affect your ability to reach an impartial verdict.
This implies that he's actually guilty. Murder with a good reason is still murder for non-cops and non-soldiers. I think it might even be detrimental to have the jury think he had a good motive.
yes the healthcare system is evil. but i also don't think all people who've been screwed over would support the death of the CEOs of it. Even then, the jury's being asked if luigi is guilty of killing the guy, and assuming the allegations are true, then they'd say yes.
I'm sure in your bubble there's a lot of people that would let him go just to make a point but general public is very stupid and easily manipulated. They will easily find 12 people that will "fulfill their duty" and make sure "justice was served". It's very unlikely that 1 person believing in jury nullification will slip through and derail it by causing miss trail, let alone 12 that will unanimously vote "not guilty".
thats a well known fact, they want someone that is a pushover. if dont answer questions or quiet you will likely be selected as a juror, so make sure if your not wanting to serve start talking like alot. they will also try to keep you in as long as possible to seek out biases, if your faking it(it might backfire on you and they might choose you).
i was in vore dire recently and thats what they did with a Sjw ACTIVIST, they kept her in the 12 selected/ 3-6 alternates like for 3 days just because they think she was trying to get out of serving.
Verdict ,not guilty
Having health insurance tied to employment is inherently screwing people, so probably not.