>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38667591/ns/us_news-security/
>>
>>They booted this guy off the jury because "he had 'pre-conceived' views that might jeopardize their case". His views? Gitmo should be closed.
>>
>>Now, whether or not you agree with him, what about the remainder of the jurors? Assuming that some of the other potential jurors hold the same feelings and also get booted off, doesn't this sound like the prosecutor is stacking the deck?
>>
>>What blasted difference could it possibly make to the defendant whether or not a potential juror agrees with the existance of Gitmo?
>>
>>Shouldn't they rather be looking to see if jurors can be fair and impartial towards to defendants?
>>
>>This is just wrong.
>
>How is this different from a civilian trial where both sides routinely reject jurors who may hold views that they feel won't benefit their client? Each side gets a certain number of rejections for every trial. So in essence, both sides get to "stack the deck" in a sense - or at least until their juror refusals run out.... this looks to me like a media attempt to make a story where one does not exist - or at least is no different than any other jury trial.

Except this issue has absolutly nothing to do with the client. It's a political issue completely unrelated to the defendant or his crimes.