They're just going to keep going through jury pools until they can find enough bootlickers, which seems to be the antithesis of the "jury of your peers" system.
His peers find his actions justifiable. The rich can get over it.
On this particular case they will find a way. A little nudge here, a few background checks moved to the top of the queue there. I think the way it works is that lawyers have only so many chances to reject a jury candidate and then they run out of rejections. Thats what I saw on TV anyway.
I agree, but isnt it true that either side only gets the opportunity to reject so many candidates before they lose the option to reject? They cant just keep on rejecting forever right?
I think we're each half right, theres some nuance. I finally goiogled it like I should have from the start. Heres a law office talking about it in New York: