I have a question. [I don't like this opening. Of course you do otherwise you most likely won't be writing here]
I'm reading this book called "reading people" and it in, the author explains some of the tactics she used to read ppl when she was a lawyer. One of the things she repeatedly mentioned was how she always tried to read the juries before choosing any of em. My question is, why/how does a laywer get to appoint the jury, who are ultimately going to make the verdict?
If you're referring to the US legal system, the jury selection process involves a Q&A process called "voir dire", in which prospective jurors are questioned by attorneys representing both sides of a case about their backgrounds and potential biases before being invited to sit on a jury.
"When people respond to a jury summons, they gather at the court house to form a pool of potential jurors from which they are called in groups for specific criminal or civil trials. There they are questioned by attorneys for each side and/or the trial judge about their background, life experiences, and opinions to determine whether they can weigh the evidence fairly and objectively. This process is called voir dire, an Anglo-French term meaning "to speak the truth."
Through voir dire, an attorney can challenge a prospective juror "for cause" if that person says or otherwise expresses a bias against the attorney's case. Each attorney can also exercise a limited number of "peremptory" challenges for which no reason is required. Those individuals who are accepted by both attorneys [or the trial judge, if the judge conducts the voir dire] are impaneled and sworn in as the jury.
Traditionally, American attorneys have had much latitude in conducting voir dire. The power to challenge-and the discretion to use it-is very important in our adversary system of justice; each attorney works for a jury most sympathetic to their side. Like all powers, this one has been subject to misuse and even abuse. As American society has evolved, so too has voir dire."