There are possibilities of a good outcome.
There’s still a non-zero chance of an extremely bad outcome.
Even if the very good outcome happens, danger still lurks. The fight will not be over.
Even if the very bad outcome happens, it’s also not over. It will be extremely shitty to say the least, but the key is survival. We’re far from alone. As long as we live, and we have each other, we can find a way.
I have long since resigned myself to the fact that no matter who wins which battles, we’ll all be fighting for the rest of our lives. It’s been true of all humans for the past many centuries. We won’t be any different.
We can’t ask more from ourselves or each other than to rise to whatever the occasion demands in a capacity that is within our ability.
I’m not sure if it’s a confirmation bias or not. It seems like everyone I write voting postcards for ends up winning. I think it’s also that the people who run the voting postcard service are picking races that are winnable. They don’t often waste their time writing for someone who has no chance.
Voir dire is such an interesting and fascinating process. It’s always surprised me how little it’s actually portrayed in legal dramas and other media. It’s like a mini-battle before the larger courtroom one.
As a lawyer, I have an informal rule of thumb that if a legal show or movie actually shows the jury selection process, it’s going to be more accurate and better overall then the usual legal crap that’s on TV.
It really is a psychological battle between the two sides trying to pick sympathetic jurors, trying to eliminate hostile jurors, and that’s even before you get to the jury consultants and the somewhat shady stuff that goes on in larger more high profile trials.
The best legal drama I’ve ever seen, the first season of Murder One, from the late 90s, actually spent 2-3 whole episodes just on jury selection. The entire season was just one trial.
I find it deeply hilarious how immediately I am dismissed from jury duty every time I ever make it past the questionnaire. Last time they called me up, asked me one question (“what do you do for a living?”) and then both sides dismissed me.
I’ve always gotten the vibe that lawyers do not like jurors who are highly educated. I presume it was because they want people they can influence with their lawyering and not people who will ignore them and draw their own conclusions from the evidence.
It’s a sad commentary on our judicial system that the most commonly picked jurors are the least educated, the elderly, retired, etc.
Professionals don’t want to serve on juries and don’t have the time. They try to get out of it every chance they get.
The lawyers at trial aren’t looking for people who can think for themselves, they’re looking for convinceable sheep. People who can think are wildcards.
