So far, 14 jurors have proffered excuses as to why they can't serve on the jury of accused killer Ingmar Guandique. These include watching too much TV, a wife who was recently mugged, and...hate crime bias.
Said the potential juror, "As a gay person, I live in fear daily because of hate crime...It would be hard for me to pass judgment based on another person's act of violence." Whether this would have been considered reasonable grounds for dismissal is unclear; he also copped to already considering the defendant guilty. We can maybe see this flying in an actual hate-crime trial, but here? It's dubious.
In a high-profile case such as this, one would assume finding n impartial jury could be challenging. But why are the jurors themselves so unusually eager to get out? No one loves jury duty, but really? Is it the possibility of a long and complicated trial? The inevitable media scrutiny? The unwillingness to deal with the trauma of such a charged case? All understandable, we suppose. But NB: "having graduate classes on Wednesdays" apparently doesn't cut it.