This is normal voir dire practice. Both sides get to reject a number of jurors who they think would be unsympathetic to their side. Picking a jury is a skill in and of itself, and not to be taken lightly.
Still can be biased, even with 15 free challenges for each side. How is that? Prosecution doesn't like a juror, the judge strikes them for cause. Defense doesn't like a potential juror, tough luck, you have to use one of your 15 challenges. Eventually the defense runs out of challenges and the prosecution gets to pick whoever they want.
This is sort of unrelated to the individual case, but it really irks me how the judiciary basically has unchecked authoritarian power when the legislature is so divided.
This is normal voir dire practice. Both sides get to reject a number of jurors who they think would be unsympathetic to their side. Picking a jury is a skill in and of itself, and not to be taken lightly.
Still can be biased, even with 15 free challenges for each side. How is that? Prosecution doesn't like a juror, the judge strikes them for cause. Defense doesn't like a potential juror, tough luck, you have to use one of your 15 challenges. Eventually the defense runs out of challenges and the prosecution gets to pick whoever they want.
This is sort of unrelated to the individual case, but it really irks me how the judiciary basically has unchecked authoritarian power when the legislature is so divided.
This is absolutely par for the course.