If we only present one witness, but based on that witness’s testimony you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, can you convict him?After which, "The prosecutors then gleefully challenge, for cause, all of the jurors who say 'no.'”
In the comments I pointed out that the Bible, Old Testament and New, says no one should be convicted for any crime except on the testimony of “two or three” witnesses. Moses (Deut. 19:15), Jesus (Matt. 18:15-16), and the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 13:1) were the ones who laid down the “two or three” witnesses rule, so none of them could serve on a Harris County jury if they were alive today and honestly answered that question! The same goes for modern religious folk who believe as those men did. Further, I argued:
Even for those unaware of the biblical precedent, ... jurors know that anybody can make an error and that the decision before them is a serious one, while the ADA is engaging in gamesmanship at the expense of a fair jury.A prosecutor in the comments took umbrage at Bennett's criticism, insisting that "just because it works and you don’t like it doesn’t make it unfair." What is meant, though, by "it works"? Apparently that the question keeps people with values similar to Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from ever participating on a Harris County jury. Heaven knows where that kind of thing could lead!
Bottom line: The jurors struck are concerned about the possibility of convicting an innocent person. The prosecutors who ask the question are not.