Should teetoalers be allowed to serve on juries in DUI cases?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My dad told a story of the one time he served on a jury, for a guy who tested over twice the legal limit while driving (and defended himself and was apparently a complete moron who claimed he didn't drive the car and only went into it to grab a pack of cigarettes and then started it to warm up.) At the beginning of jury selection, all the potential jurors were together in a room and the judge started by asking anyone who didn't drink to raise their hand. A couple hands went up and the judge said "OK thank you for coming. All of you with your hands up can leave now."

Probs my just a policy of the judge instead of North Dakota law but I found it interesting.

[darklordoftech]

Yes, but members of MADD shouldn't be allowed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think they should be allowed. While many teetotalers do hold anti-alcohol stances that would bias them against the defendants in these cases, it is fundamentally a personal choice and does not entail any beliefs about the conduct of others.

[Dereich]

As someone who regularly picks DUI juries: absolutely. And that's not just from the perspective of the state; it can go both ways. Usually, on a panel of 20 we'll have between 4 and 7 non-drinkers. The only time their non-drinking is a genuine problem is when it comes from DUI-related experience, like a sibling being killed by a drunk driver. But for religious non-drinkers or those who don't like the taste of alcohol, there can be good reasons both sides would want to keep them on the panel. Obviously, as the State we would be hoping that they'd automatically dislike drinkers...but there are very good reasons why that wouldn't be true and why the defense would want a teetotaler.

For one, many non-drinkers have less experience overall with alcohol. I've had some non-drinkers on jury panels even tell me they don't think they've ever been around a drunk person. There are plenty of DUIs where a defense attorney would LOVE someone like that on their jury. In that case, the defense can poke all sorts of holes in the signs of impairment that officers testify to (i.e. my client could naturally have a flushed face, allergies could have caused the bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol is only proof of consumption, not impairment) without that juror knowing better from personal experience what an impaired person looks like. And on the other hand, you have non-drinkers who are recovering alcoholics. They're also a possible choice for both parties. On one hand, many of them do come down hard on drinkers. But on the other hand, they'll often compare what they see on a DUI/body camera video or in officer testimony to their own experiences and if they think "this defendant doesn't look anywhere near as bad as I did when I was drinking" we as the State have basically lost them. So much that goes into choosing jurors depends on the specifics of both the facts of the case and the personal quirks of each juror.

There is no juror who you can guarantee will vote the way you want them to in the jury room. That's why at my office we often call them "forces of darkness." Former police officers can automatically trust police or they can hate police witnesses for doing things differently then the way they used to do it. Some women can put themselves in a domestic abuse victim's shoes, but many cannot and are more inclined to victim-blame. Its the same with non-drinkers; they aren't a solid block. Outside of family members of one of the parties, I think its a terrible idea to eliminate any broad category of person before voir dire.

[136or142]

As someone who regularly picks DUI juries: absolutely. And that's not just from the perspective of the state; it can go both ways. Usually, on a panel of 20 we'll have between 4 and 7 non-drinkers. The only time their non-drinking is a genuine problem is when it comes from DUI-related experience, like a sibling being killed by a drunk driver. But for religious non-drinkers or those who don't like the taste of alcohol, there can be good reasons both sides would want to keep them on the panel. Obviously, as the State we would be hoping that they'd automatically dislike drinkers...but there are very good reasons why that wouldn't be true and why the defense would want a teetotaler.

For one, many non-drinkers have less experience overall with alcohol. I've had some non-drinkers on jury panels even tell me they don't think they've ever been around a drunk person. There are plenty of DUIs where a defense attorney would LOVE someone like that on their jury. In that case, the defense can poke all sorts of holes in the signs of impairment that officers testify to (i.e. my client could naturally have a flushed face, allergies could have caused the bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol is only proof of consumption, not impairment) without that juror knowing better from personal experience what an impaired person looks like. And on the other hand, you have non-drinkers who are recovering alcoholics. They're also a possible choice for both parties. On one hand, many of them do come down hard on drinkers. But on the other hand, they'll often compare what they see on a DUI/body camera video or in officer testimony to their own experiences and if they think "this defendant doesn't look anywhere near as bad as I did when I was drinking" we as the State have basically lost them. So much that goes into choosing jurors depends on the specifics of both the facts of the case and the personal quirks of each juror.

There is no juror who you can guarantee will vote the way you want them to in the jury room. That's why at my office we often call them "forces of darkness." Former police officers can automatically trust police or they can hate police witnesses for doing things differently then the way they used to do it. Some women can put themselves in a domestic abuse victim's shoes, but many cannot and are more inclined to victim-blame. Its the same with non-drinkers; they aren't a solid block. Outside of family members of one of the parties, I think its a terrible idea to eliminate any broad category of person before voir dire.

According to Gallup, 38% of Americans don't drink any alcohol.