Having work duties (costs of time and energy: power) drain me it has been awhile since I've worked on Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard. The idea behind that specific work is to find more data to enrich the concept of Voluntary Mutual Defense.

I have been sent on other directions by members of SLug (IDW?) posting data on other Topics.

Example:
"The right to a jury trial belongs exclusively to the criminal defendant,18 and its purpose is to protect the defendant from governmental overreach.19

"18 See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155 ( 1968 ) ( “A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government.” ) ; see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819–20 (1975) ( “The Sixth Amendment . . . grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense. . . . The right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.” ).

"19 See Duncan, 391 U.S. at 156 ( “Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.” )."
The Unconstitutionality of Criminal Jury Selection Brittany L. Deitch
[scholarship.law.wm.edu]

That appears to me as yet another of the steps in the step by step process away from law (a power to maintain accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case for the benefit of everyone: The Public) and toward crime as crime counterfeits the law.

That goes along with the concept of Double Jeopardy.

In other words if the accuser (private prosecutor, or "public" prosecutor) picks and chooses jurors based upon the accuser's opinions concerning what constitutes bias, then the case is tried during jury selection, and that means that the actual Trial by Jury would be a second, not the only, trial that the accused must defend against. That is also an example of jury tampering, jury stacking, which is a trial before the trial, a power to convict (trial 1) before the power to convict (or acquit) is placed before the country in trial by the country (trial 2: double jeopardy) which is trial by jury, which is the law of the land, the common law, legem terrae.

See also:

U.S. Supreme Court
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

The Chief Justice, accordingly, addressed the Grand Jury to the following effect:

M'Kean, Chief Justice.

"After some conversation with the Grand Inquest, the Attorney General informed the court, that a list of eleven persons had been presented to him by the Foreman, with a request, that they might be qualified and sent to the jury, as witnesses upon a bill then depending before them. He stated that the list had been made out by the defendant's bail; that the persons named were intended to furnish testimony in favor of the party charged, upon facts with which the Inquest, of their own knowledge, were unacquainted; and he concluded with requesting, that the opinion of the court might be given upon this application. Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury."

I have yet to read through The Unconstitutionality of Criminal Jury Selection, by Brittany L. Deitch, to see the data in that work, but it seems clear enough to me that Double Jeopardy and Jury Tampering are the results of allowing a prosecutor to pick and choose which jurors will help the prosecutor persecute the defendant.

If the case is beyond reasonable doubt, than the only "for-cause" reason to exclude a juror is if the juror lacks the capacity to reason. This is made more difficult when criminals are able to counterfeit reason, or to con people into thinking that crime is reasonable, meaning crime is not crime, crime is acceptable behavior, which is another way of describing the meaning of bias in matters of law.

A bias toward gender or color of skin is not a criminal bias, a bias (unreasonable, or criminal) is injury done to other people willfully, whereby the criminal perpetrating such injury would defend against the same injury, a clear, unreasonable, criminal, bias.

A huge problem with a sudden move back to rule of law today involves the clear criminal bias infecting so many potential jurors in America. How can someone reasonably explain away (rationalize) their criminal bias of allowing people in the "government" to murder people with impunity, while at the same time the "voter" claims to afford those same criminal murderers (in office) the power to lock other people up for murder, and hand all the cost of locking people up to innocent people who just want to live and let live, innocent people who produce anything worth stealing, such as the LOOT required to keep people locked up, murderers, or people who grow plants?

It is OK for those people to get away with murder if it lines my pockets, since I voted for them, and it is OK for those people to punish murderers if other murderers (who don't line my pocket) scare me, again because I voted for them to murder people they think they ought to murder, and lock people up for murder, or growing plants.