to be less reliable than in-person testimony.

It was a car accident case involving a college-aged guy who had been rear ended by an elderly couple. I had made it into in the jury box for jury selection and was still there after the judge's initial questions about whether we knew any of the litigants or the lawyers, etc. Then judge explained that the plaintiff was planning to introduce evidence from a chiropractor who would not testify in court, but who had instead submitted an affidavit that plaintiff would plan to introduce during the trial. The judge asked if anyone would have a problem accepting that evidence as valid evidence.

I thought about it, and after a couple of seconds I raised my hand. I absolutely did not want to be on this jury. So I said something that was true but that was absolutely designed to get me excused. I said something like "I wouldn't completely discount it, but if I wasn't able to look in the witness's eyes when he testified and assess his credibility, I would definitely consider it to be less reliable."

The judge then asked, "But do you think this would prevent you from assessing the evidence fairly and impartially?"

"No," I responded. "But this is a chiropractor we're talking about, so . . ."

I don't think the judge excused me for cause, but the plaintiff's attorney used his first challenge on me. 😉