Readers React: Objection! Jury system works

I was stunned when I read this piece. Jury selection is the most important part of any trial and takes the longest because it ensures that the accused is judged by a fair and impartial jury. (“A (slightly) better way to pick a jury,” Editorial, June 19)

Granted, it poses an inconvenience to jurors. But to suggest shortening the process at the expense of another’s liberty flies in the face of due process and our Constitution.

I invite the members of The Times editorial board to step into the lion’s den and join me and my client during our next jury selection. My hunch is that a different viewpoint would emerge.

Lou Shapiro, Los Angeles

The writer is a lawyer specializing in criminal law.

The Times is correct.

When we become a prospective juror, a computer randomly selected us at least three times. First, we are chosen for jury duty. Second, we are selected for a day to report to court. The final selection comes when some are called from the jury pool to go to a courtroom.

Is there any better way to choose a jury of our peers? The no-cause preemptory challenges simply allow lawyers the opportunity to shape a jury one way or another. For them it is all about winning and not necessarily justice.

We must end no-cause preemptory challenges, and any politician who stands for justice will help eliminate this terrible ability to taint a jury.

Alan L. Strzemieczny, Riverside

You suggest eliminating peremptory challenges, but you do not analyze what impact that would have.

It is odd to write a piece critiquing a policy without actually analyzing the costs and benefits of the proposed alternative.

You also state that peremptory challenges are costly; however, it is the for-cause challenges that are litigated and thus take up time. If the peremptory challenges were removed, wouldn’t the for-cause challenges become more precious and therefore litigated more heavily?

From your analysis, there is no reason to think that eliminating peremptory challenges would speed up trials or benefit the criminal justice system in general. Further, doesn’t it make sense to test the benefits of reforming peremptory challenges on the misdemeanor system before making drastic changes to the felony system?

Garett Gorlitsky, Los Angeles