How are you considering that such disqualifies you from ever sitting in a jury box? Are you thinking more in the general principle that your bias would prevent you from being impartial, or more that it would be rooted out during voir dire, and you'd be dismissed because of it? Because if it doesn't come up in voir dire, and you don't volunteer it, you might end up in that jury box.
In my case, I'd have liked to think that I'm not particularly biased for or against police, though news stories like this one don't help in that regard. But when I sat in a jury box, I don't recall it coming up. The only question from voir dire that I can immediately recall was the defense attorney making sure I understood accusation != guilt.
With that said, I did up having to consider the police witness testimony unreliable. Not because I thought they were lying because they could get away with it, but because it was too inconsistent from one officer to the next. That was one of the first things we agreed on in the jury room, that the police testimony was too inconsistent to be useful, and that we would need to focus on the other evidence (video, DNA testing, call records, et. al.)
I was recently called for jury duty, and the whole jury was asked if they would give testimony different weight if it came from a police officer. When called up in voir dire, I said that I would give police testimony lower weight than others, and it wouldn't be enough on its own to prove guilt. The judge excused me from the case.
That’s fair enough, really. The defense probably would have thrown out the ones who said they’d put a higher weight on police testimony.
Being skeptical of witness accounts is fine, but you admitted partiality specifically based on their occupation - I assume they want people who as much as possibly will evaluate the account based only the facts at hand.
i've had one judge disqualify me for saying that i place zero weight on police officer testimonies, whereas the other judge asked me if i could take them seriously if there were other pieces of evidence that corroborated what the police were saying.
i served on the second jury; the police officer was blatantly lying but there was no evidence which corroborated their story anyway.
In my case, I'd have liked to think that I'm not particularly biased for or against police, though news stories like this one don't help in that regard. But when I sat in a jury box, I don't recall it coming up. The only question from voir dire that I can immediately recall was the defense attorney making sure I understood accusation != guilt.
With that said, I did up having to consider the police witness testimony unreliable. Not because I thought they were lying because they could get away with it, but because it was too inconsistent from one officer to the next. That was one of the first things we agreed on in the jury room, that the police testimony was too inconsistent to be useful, and that we would need to focus on the other evidence (video, DNA testing, call records, et. al.)