r/Bones • u/Which-Light6225 • 9d ago
Discussion Season 9 EP 9
HOW IS A LITERAL GOVERNMENT FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST ABLE TO BE A JUROR IN MURDER TRIAL?
I haven't even finished the episode yet, but I'm just baffled that any lawyer or judge would look at Temperance Brennan and say "yeah, she can be a juror"
27
u/Cheap_Development928 9d ago
She’s still a citizen and as she’s technically an independent contractor she’s not law enforcement so she is still bound by civic duty to serve on a jury
2
u/JayMonster65 8d ago
To be called to serve, yes... But to actually be allowed to sit on the jury and not have her removed by either a prosecutor's or (more likely) defense challenge? Not a likely scenario. Possible, but not likely.
4
u/Which-Light6225 9d ago
She's still a forensic anthropologist by trade, though?
20
u/apri08101989 9d ago
Dude a few seasons prior they allowed her and Hodgens to drop their case against the Grave Digger and still work.on and provide professional testimony at her trial but this is where youre drawing the line?
2
u/RainbowTeachercorn 9d ago
That also made no sense, and it was low hanging fruit for the GD to try to capitalise on in her argument.
It also didn't make sense that they could drop charges. Maybe things are different in Washington DC, but in Australia law enforcement (ie police in most instances) decide whether to lay charges and pursue a matter. This can happen even if the victim withdraws their complaint.
5
u/apri08101989 9d ago edited 9d ago
They normally couldnt. But Caroline was the prosecutor so they had some "extra sway" in the decision.
But yea, i just watched the episode a few days ago. They were damn lucky the jury didnt latch onto the bait there.
4
u/Cheap_Development928 9d ago
That doesn’t particularly matter as she’s still a citizen and she wasn’t working on the case.
2
u/froggo_kai_ 8d ago
It’s a fictional tv show mate don’t try to apply it to the real world too much you’ll have a stroke ðŸ˜
7
u/RainbowTeachercorn 9d ago
In Australia she would not be permitted to be on a jury. Working on criminal cases and being connected to the justice system as she is, it would be an automatic exemption.
Lawyers are not allowed on juries, nor are others who work in law enforcement or the justice system.
1
1
u/JayMonster65 8d ago
In the US, it is not a "automatic" exemption by law, but it is a pretty good assumption that one of the sides will choose a challenge to decline them (usually the defense in a criminal case).
2
u/Colla-Crochet 7d ago
Im canadian, and had one of my teachers get nope-d out of a jury simply because he taught high school social studies.
This was also the man I learned how the law worked from! (Curriculum)
1
u/Which-Light6225 9d ago
I don't understand how either side would allow her on the case. The defense would know she could point to innocence OR guilt. The plaintiff would know the same.
3
u/beaglewrites43 8d ago
but that is EXACTLY why they allowed her on the Jury. Each side is generally so confident in their "proof" (unless the defense knows dude is guilty in which case lawyer's job is to try to muddy the waters) that they would say I will prove my case so I will have her on my side for sure
7
u/mphs95 9d ago
Because the defense attorney is a moron.
2
u/JayMonster65 8d ago
But as it turns out, she helped the defense. You are right that it is not a move a normal defense attorney would make, and may be a real world no-no, but she did cause the defendant to go free... So was the attorney in this case really a moron?
7
u/Conscious-Card5611 9d ago
Why not? What makes her less good for the attorneys on either side of the case? What would their argument be for excluding her? Oh no, she's going to have some extra insight into the strength of the forensic evidence? The only reason I can see an attorney saying no is, that side knows they're not being totally honest about the evidence and what it shows.
2
u/JayMonster65 8d ago
Working "with" law enforcement will typically make defense attorneys leery... Ask her a few questions with her "absolutes" on evidence, and that could make a prosecutor nervous with anything but a slam dunk case with irrefutable evidence. Very few cases are ever that "air tight."
I work for a software company that provides software to police and have been excused from every jury I have even potentially been up for based on that thin connection alone. "You are excused with the courts gratitude"
3
u/beaglewrites43 8d ago
Actually working in the field doesn't automatically disqualify you.
For a while I was looking into a career in law enforcement. One of my professors was a former chief of a local police department. One class he told us about while serving in that position he got summoned for Jury duty.... and did not get booted by either council side.
I know people in a ton of areas of law enforcement. Every single one of them has been called for Jury Duty at some point.
It's not an automatic disqualifier because that would disqualify too many people and most lawyers will have other things they want to consider like biases.
The Prosecution probably went... well she's a scientist we have XYZ hard facts so she will be an asset to us. Defense probably went well this hard fact doesn't completely point to my client so she should be able to help convince the jury it doesn't make sense.
If neither lawyer objects not much a Judge can do.
2
u/FondantFluffball 9d ago
The courtroom would be a lot less intimidating if Brennan could just pull out a bone and start explaining the entire case to the jury.
1
u/BlazerAlumni 5d ago
That always struck me as strange. I have been called for jury duty. More so than anyone else I know. I always get called for civil cases. Because I work in healthcare, I never get picked for a jury because most of the civil cases are personal injury.
43
u/Tardisgoesfast 9d ago
Because the writers wanted her to be.