Public Enemy: quotes from the Martin Shkreli jury selection process

So does the fact that so many people know about and despise Shkreli mean that the jury selection process will select for people who are less informed or don't reflect the values of the general population (Or just people who are willing to lie about their ability to be impartial)? Is there a term for this, or how is this accounted for in the process?

I think this is so important and less reflective of either Shkreli or the legal system, rather it shines a bright light on how many people are struggling to afford both adequate healthcare&#x2F;drug coverage and simple can&#x27;t afford their own prescriptions and as a result do not&#x2F;can not take them.<p>It is a damn shame. It is also a damn shame people in this country have to be in court&#x2F;under oath (potential jury members are during the selection process) to admit to these financial shortcomings, because such admissions of financial difficulty are social stigmas that almost anyone would try to avoid admitting (it&#x27;s the same with millions who were in foreclosure during the Great Recession who would never admit it).

I understand that Martin may not be popular to many people, but everyone deserves a fair trial, even those who are repugnant. I am glad that these people recognized that they were biased and spoke up, rather than taint the jury.

How many of these people just wanted to get out of jury duty. I did jury duty a couple years ago and it was entertaining how hard some people tried to appear impartial so they would be excused.<p>Lawyer - &quot;Do you think people have the right to self-defense?&quot;<p>Potential juror - &quot;No. If someone shoots at you, it&#x27;s murder if you shoot back.&quot;

&gt;&gt;&gt; juror no. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.<p>clearly the best reason to be biased

Anyone surprised by this has never sat <i>voir dire</i>. No one on earth is as biased and judgmental as the yokels trying to get out of jury duty claim to be. Both times I&#x27;ve gone through this I was hoping the judge would start handing out contempt of court citations.

Many comments seem to be unaware that the trial is now over. He was convicted on 3 of 8 charges[1]. I guess one could argue that an extremely biased jury would just have convicted him on everything.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;08&#x2F;04&#x2F;business&#x2F;dealbook&#x2F;martin-shkreli-guilty.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;08&#x2F;04&#x2F;business&#x2F;dealbook&#x2F;martin-...</a>

One should note that people come up with tons of crazy excuses for why they can&#x27;t serve on a jury when they don&#x27;t want to be there.<p>Source: I was in jury selection for a simple possession trial that lasted two fulls days, and watched peoples excuses become more and more elaborate as the process wore on.

Is this a story about what happens when potential jurors have access to Google prior to the interview?<p>Shkreli is internet-meme famous and not exactly a national celebrity. I&#x27;d be surprised if so many people would recognise him by name without having an omniscient device in their pocket, let alone sneak in an obscure reference to his Wu-Tang Clan album. I guess people don&#x27;t know what the case is when they&#x27;re invited to selection, but nowadays they find out some minutes or hours before the actual interview?

It&#x27;s sad that a bunch of idiots acting like this get to decide who is guilty and who is innocent.<p>In this case maybe he got lucky because they&#x27;d already heard of him and made their stupidity apparent straight away. But what if they hadn&#x27;t? What if they only learnt about his drug pricing during the trial and then convicted him based on that?

Hilarious, but if those people really wanted to see Shkreli convicted they would pretend to be impartial.

As an outsider, why are juries not &quot;blindfolded&quot;? As in, given a fake name, only the transcribed testimonies, and relevant evidence. It&#x27;s just strange that the accuseds identity and (potential) reputation could influence the trial (positively or negatively).

Interesting transcript, but I would be actually more curious to see the transcript of the questions (and answers given by them) asked to the jurors that were actually selected.

Ah, is this nonfiction?

When will the US get rid of these juries? How can they seriously trust judicial decisions on random people?

&gt; I have several friends who have H.I.V. or AIDS who, again, can’t afford the prescription drugs that they were able to afford.<p>Skreli&#x27;s defense for this is that the costs are primarily borne by insurance providers. I have no idea about US healthcare which seems a bit of a quagmire, is this true?

Smart enough to land himself in prison .. is an oxymoron?

Regardless of Martin&#x27;s guilt or innocence (prior to conviction) this is virtue signalling at it&#x27;s finest.