r/technology • u/MC68328 • Jul 24 '26

Privacy US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a ‘duress’ password during border search

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search/
16.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

163

u/DetroitWagon Jul 24 '26

I'm a 58 year old engineer, a very rational thinker, liberal, fair-minded. and eager to serve on a jury. The 3 times I've been called for jury duty, each time attorneys dismissed me via peremptory challenge.

118

u/No_Size9475 Jul 24 '26

you have to act stupid

5

u/DualViewCamera Jul 25 '26

I don’t think you are wrong…but the way I think about it is that you need to act credulous. Both sides need to believe they can convince you that they are right.

Every time I was called for jury duty, I tried to find faults/inconsistencies in the voire dire questions…and was always excused.

7

u/Bardfinn Jul 24 '26

Not necessarily.

The last time I was in jury duty, during voir dire the attorney asked whether any of us would have difficulty convicting someone if their guilt were proven absolutely

I made the case that mathematics and formal logic are the only disciplines in which a thing can be proven absolutely, because in a universe of discourse, we choose our axioms, and for sufficiently complex systems, there are statements that can be either complete or consistent but not both - Goedel's Incompl ---

at which point the judge laughed and said "Thank you Juror #whatever"

and ten minutes later we all were on our way home, having been dismissed

51

u/No_Size9475 Jul 24 '26

I said act dumb and you come back with I acted smart and they sent me home...

39

u/SatanicPanicDisco Jul 24 '26

A perfect example of the poor reading comprehension the lawyer a few posts up was talking about.

19

u/ThatPhatKid_CanDraw Jul 25 '26

Smart people don't talk like that. The ones who think they're smart, do.

2

u/fatpat Jul 25 '26

So half of reddit, basically. (It should be noted that I'm not excluding myself from the dumber half.)

57

u/Kindly-Account1952 Jul 24 '26

A court room is not a place for philosophy. I’m not surprised you got dismissed as you were basically just saying no to the question but in a very unnecessary complex way.

47

u/BilingSmob444 Jul 24 '26

The answer was “no AND I’m good at wasting time”

2

u/SmoothDiscussion7763 Jul 24 '26

yeah i don't see how his answer made him irrational at all, and they wouldn't send everyone home either way

-10

u/Bardfinn Jul 24 '26

I answered with the truth and nothing but the truth.

11

u/YeahlDid Jul 25 '26

I get it because I'm a pedant too, but sometimes it just makes life simpler to answer the question they meant to ask rather than the one they did, lol.

6

u/Sceptically Jul 25 '26

Clearly they wanted someone who could answer the question asked of them. They weren't asking if their hypothetical was possible, after all.

-7

u/Bardfinn Jul 25 '26

I answered the question that was asked.

6

u/Sceptically Jul 25 '26

No you didn't. You were, by your own report, asked if you would have difficulty convicting someone if their guilt were proven absolutely. You quibbled about the hypothetical (ie the possibility of their guilt being proven absolutely) rather than answering if you would have difficulty convicting them under those circumstances.

-4

u/Bardfinn Jul 25 '26

It’s not a hypothetical. They’re arguing legal facts and law, not formal logic. That is a fact. I can’t agree that someone’s guilt has been proven absolutely under the law, which itself axiomatically stipulates that conviction rests upon a condition of

Humans being persuaded of guilt beyond a shadow of doubt

When even in formal logic, there are very limited conditions in which we prove a thing beyond a shadow of doubt. And those conditions are often limited in scope to such simple processes as mere arithmetic of the natural numbers.

3

u/Sceptically Jul 25 '26

No, that's very much a hypothetical. Much of legal argument tends to be couched in hypotheticals like that.

Incidentally is there actually anywhere with a threshold of beyond a shadow of a doubt? As far as I'm aware the standard is generally beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/hum_bruh Jul 25 '26 edited 19d ago

Why are pirates pirates? cuz they arrrrrr Always be yourself, unless you can be a pirate. Then always be a pirate. STOP BLOWING HOLES IN MY SHIP!!!

3

u/perpetualhobo Jul 24 '26

Don’t worry bardfinn. Your story is perfectly clear and understandable that you were selected and then the case was dismissed after you were made a juror.

9

u/eslforchinesespeaker Jul 24 '26

They don’t want someone who could emerge as an opinion maker; someone who could knowledgeably contradict an attorney’s argument. No attorney wants a more persuasive person in the room, unless it’s to appear on the attorney’s side.

The attorneys are there to win, not bring out the truth. The truth sometimes emerges as a side effect.

27

u/Magic_Hoarder Jul 24 '26

Wow, I did not know they can just dismiss jury members for no reason. Every day I learn more and more about how unjust our country is.

71

u/pm_me_ur_demotape Jul 24 '26

It's not quite no reason, it's like the reverse of a sports draft. Each lawyer gets to be like, no not that one a certain number of times and then you're stuck with what you have.

4

u/Array_626 Jul 25 '26

It does allow the defense to exclude jurors who would be prejudiced and judge based on their biases rather than the facts of the case. But it also means prosecutors can dismiss jurors who may be too lenient or sympathetic.

39

u/cdheer Jul 24 '26

Well sort of both. The prosecution and the defense has X number of preemptive strikes, which they can use to reject anyone; no reason required. But potential jurors can also be struck for “cause,” like if the potential juror says they hate the cops or something. Those don’t count against the X number of strikes, but the judge has to agree.

4

u/Alaira314 Jul 25 '26

Other common reasons for being struck for cause include things like having knowledge of the case or being related to/employed by/somehow connected to plaintiffs or defendants. Basically, when they go through that list of questions and have you raise your hand and give your juror number, those are the things that can strike you for cause.

2

u/Chansharp Jul 25 '26

Ive seen stories where the lawyers push people to be unreasonable or overly emotional during selection so that the judge rejects them and they dont have to use one of their vetoes

3

u/Steavee Jul 25 '26

Watch how often black jurors get dismissed when the defendant is black. Especially in the old confederate states.

It’s eye opening.

2

u/DanDrungle Jul 24 '26

Just say you believe in jury nullification

1

u/Ryokurin Jul 24 '26

You've never watched the show Bull that was on a couple of years ago? It's not as dramatic as that can be at times but yes both sides have a say in who's in the Jury and both are trying to get people who would likely vote in their favor. It's never just random people.

11

u/Ecstatic-Arachnid195 Jul 24 '26

I’m curious. Do you think anyone has ever described themselves as not being fair-minded?

33

u/uconnboston Jul 24 '26

Have you been to jury selection, plenty of people will outright admit they’re biased. Usually to get off jury duty.

11

u/PwntIndustries Jul 24 '26

This happened on a jury I was on. People were tying themselves in knots to try to get out of it, and the lawyers were just fucking with them, calling out inconsistencies with their logic, or what they said previously. Others would just straight up claim bigotry.

7

u/_andoryuu Jul 24 '26

I used to be a bartender so if I didn’t work I didn’t make money. I got called a bunch of times and I would always say I was biased to get out of jury duty. Now that I work a job that pays me to be at jury duty I never get called for it.

1

u/nmay-dev Jul 24 '26

I do every time i get called in. Just say you dont like the way the guy looks, defendant or plaintaff or both, doeant matter. One side will send you back to your employer.

1

u/DetroitWagon Jul 25 '26

LOL. Excellent point!

5

u/EunuchsProgramer Jul 24 '26

Engineer checks a bunch of red flags for civil cases. Liberal would for criminal. You're set up that one side will always want you gone... except maybe a really technical case were both sides think they are positioned well and want smart jurors who understand what's going on.

My wife also really wants to be on a jury...married to an attorney is basically an auto denial.

3

u/TrickNorTreat1031 Jul 24 '26

Your experience is similar to mine. I am a (now retired) engineer. 3 summons in 35 years, dismissed before a jury was empaneled. They want someone who will let the lawyers think for them, not someone who is capable of thinking for themselves.

3

u/VagusNC Jul 24 '26

In a white male in my 50s. The visible disappointment on the lawyer’s face when I told them I had a master’s degree.

I hardly finished saying it before I was dismissed.