As much as it would be funny to see Clinton as a juror, in a legal sense his background and identity alone are grounds for immediate challenge. Jurors are supposed to be free from bias and randomly selected, as well as free from any sort of criminal involvement in the courts. Can you imagine the persuasive influence he might have on the other jurors, who would probably still accord him the respect of an ex-president? I mean hell if Clinton told you that the defendant was guilty and then presented a semi-convincing explaination why, wouldn't you listen to him more than any other person? (even if he IS a law-dodging weasel [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
__________________
\'Cause its always raining in my head. Forget all the things I should have said..
|