Who is next to tell you what to put in your body? How about the Courts? The Courts, established to settle disputes among parties and as the last guardian of every individual’s right to be free would surely know that “vaccine” mandates in a court of law are unjust. Well, I think the jury is still out on this issue.
Seems as if there may be one more way a person could get out of jury duty arising out of the courts themselves. Recently, an Ohio judge ruled that jurors in his court must be vaccinated. Given all the excuses people put forth to get out of jury duty, I suppose some jurors might consider lying about their vaccination status. Fortunately, the judge changed his mind.
The fact that the Defendants were pharmaceutical companies and others involved in an opiate litigation suit is a bit ironic, I suppose. Here’s what happened.
On June 14, 2021, Judge Dan Aaron Polster originally ruled that the “Court will only allow individuals who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to serve as jurors.” However, the Defendants filed a motion to reconsider, arguing the jury pool would not represent a fair cross-section of the local community if only vaccinated people were allowed to sit on a jury panel. The Plaintiffs did not oppose Defendants’ motion. On June 24, the judge granted the motion for reconsideration, and ruled that the Court would not automatically disqualify prospective unvaccinated jurors. Judge Polster’s Order
Reuters reported details of which parts of the population might be under-represented if jurors must be vaccinated. See Reuters Report .
Judge Polster must not be alone in his desire to make sure all jurors have taken the shot. Recently the National Center for State Courts issued guidance including the suggestion that “vaccine” mandates may make it more difficult to seat a jury.
“Restricting the jury pool to persons who are fully vaccinated may make it more difficult to secure enough prospective jurors to select juries. Along with the coronavirus’ differential impact on people of color, public health experts have noted ongoing challenges in making vaccine distribution accessible to these communities, including higher rates of vaccine hesitancy in these communities. Excluding persons who are not fully vaccinated may make the jury pool less likely to reflect a fair cross section of the community, which in turn may also increase the risk of jury challenges.” NCSC Opinion
I hope we’ve heard the last of this issue arising in federal or state courts. However, color me skeptical. Notice the judge and the Center for State Courts did not use the juror’s individual liberty right. Instead, they chose the safer, and legitimate concern of filling a jury pool with a cross section of the population. At least in this case in Ohio, jurors are free to make their own medical decisions.