Will they sing the National Anthem once Boulder is up and running?

As an enlightened person, I regard everyone equally, with no hatred or bias in my heart. That’s how everyone should live, so don’t let no retard, cullert, or queer tell ya differnt!

> In a community this small, everyone would probably know both the accused and the victim. Same goes for the judge and lawyers

The same situation exists from time to time in any small town courtroom. I live in a town of a few thousand people and did jury duty once. Panel members were randomly selected for each case and questioned as to their suitability for service. In one case I was called for, one of the attorneys was a casual acquaintance; we had gone to the local high school at about the same time and knew each other. I mentioned that and the judge asked if it would bias me. I replied that it wouldn't, I simply thought the opposing counsel had a right to know. Not a problem. I ended up not serving on that trial's jury, but on a case where I was a juror the same situation existed with me and a fellow juror (acquaintances from high school). And in what could have been a bizarre twist, the judge presiding over a different section (district vs circuit courts) was a guy I had known since we were both in diapers. I wasn't in his courtroom so it never became an issue, but I asked how that would have been handled if I had been assigned to that panel instead of the one I was in. Not a big deal; the judge would have quietly mentioned it to the attorneys any time I was called up and ask if any of them objected to it.

So the issue isn't "do you know this person?" It's "would your relationship with this person impair your ability to be impartial?" Certainly the victim's sister, the defendant's best friend, et cetera would be disqualified from service, and if such a person tried to sneak onto the jury it would be quite difficult; in a town where "everyone knows everyone else" (not really true) someone else on the panel would likely see what was happening and speak up. And attorneys have an unlimited number of challenges for cause; they can knock as many people as they like off the jury if the judge accepts their reasons. But they also have a limited number of peremptory challenges they can use to exclude potential jurors without having to justify it to the judge; "gut feeling" situations and such.

> assuming you have anyone qualified to fill either role(the only known judge was sent on a foolish suicide mission).

I think your point about the number of available lawyers is a good one, though. At the very least, a criminal trial would require a defense attorney, a prosecutor, and three judges; one for the preliminary hearing, one for the trial, and one for the possible appellate review. Seems to me there would be very few lawyers in Boulder; almost all would have ended up in Vegas. ;)

2 Your point at first glance is a valid one but I don't see it as a violation of the accused's rights.

Lets say someone is accused of murder. Constitutionally, that person is entitled to an impartial jury. In a community this small, everyone would probably know both the accused and the victim. Same goes for the judge and lawyers, assuming you have anyone qualified to fill either role(the only known judge was sent on a foolish suicide mission).