Bottom line: The jurors struck are concerned about the possibility of convicting an innocent person. The prosecutors who ask the question are not.

Especially considering in the more serious cases that 99% of the time the jury ends up scratching their heads and wondering, “Hey, why are they calling another witness? I thought he said…”

OK, even as I type this, I’m thinking “Yes, sometimes they get to strike someone for an unstated and/or illegitmate reason because the guy was honest”.

From an intellectual standpoint I think I agree with you, but in the long run I don’t know it makes much difference.

(I almost considered not submitting this since I’m waffling back and forth, but hey – I don’t want to waste the 30 seconds I spent thinking about/typing this…)

It’s hard to follow all these special Texas rules.

You don’t think that taking advantage of your bosses’ (the jurors) lack of rhetorical savvy is unfair to them? Bad servant. Bad.

There’s a huge difference between implicitly committing a juror to convict on the testimony of less than one witness (contrary to Deut. 19:15, by the way, which might implicate Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas constitution), and committing a juror to follow the full range of punishment.

The courts got the one-witness question rule wrong. It should be an improper commitment question because it injects facts (one witness) beyond those necessary to determine whether the juror can follow the law. One witness or one hundred, the law is that the juror must convict if he finds proof BRD.

Sneaky, maybe, unfair? debatable, but “inelegant”? That one stings.

A prosecutor might respond to this post by pointing out that, once upon a time, we were allowed to ask the question that you (very astutely) identify as forming the underlying premise. Will the State ever be able to carry its burden BRD to your satisfaction through the testimony of only one witness? Put another way, could you ever find someone guilty BRD based on only one witness?

Some would contend that is a proper question, but our courts, having left the definition of BRD to each individuals’ Personal Moral Judgment, have ruled otherwise, rendering it a moot point.

However, I would say that it is neither gamesmanship nor the fault of prosecutors that many jurors HEAR the improper question and don’t understand the inherent assumptions even when we ask the proper question. I might add that this concept is closely tied to other, proper questions to find people who, for whatever CSI-related reason, want more than just testimony. I.e., Who would require me to present DNA evidence before they could convict, or who could never convict, even if I proved my case BRD through other means, without scientific evidence?

To me, there’s little difference between this question and those designed by defense attorneys to disqualify people by drawing them out on the 5th Amendment or the Full Range of Punishment. (“You’re saying that you could actually consider PROBATION appropriate for a defendant who has been CONVICTED of AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT…OF A CHILD???”)

–Hey, just because it works and you don’t like it doesn’t make it unfair.

Second, this reminds me: the single-witness question should not be allowed in multiple-witness cases because it’s not “the law applicable to the case.”

What about the delayed outcry ASAC case where the only person you put on the stand is the complainant?

Detective can’t give you anything, maybe she never went to see a therapist, and there is no rape kit.

Anon