I practice criminal defense law in Virginia (but not near) where Haynesworth goes to trial in the northern suburbs of DC. As I understand it, he is charged with misdemeanor sexual battery (not a felony). It's a typical he said - she said case that goes to trial every day.
You only get 7 jurors for a misdemeanor (my misdemeanor jury was postponed for today but I have a 12 citizen felony jury on Wednesday). I imagine that during voir dire (jury questioning and selection) the defense attorneys will ask lots of Redskins questions and take off those who honestly express bias "for cause". As many of the others as possible who concern them, but can't be removed because they are legally impartial, will be eliminated by "peremptory strikes".
Albert can afford jury consultants but I've never used them. The only thing predictable about a jury is its unpredictability. This is just me but I like as smart a jury as possible. Also, surprisingly, I'd prefer to remove jurors who don't answer any questions (I don't trust them) but keep those who, while on the surface they don't seem to be favorable for my client nevertheless, based on how they answer questions, seem sincere when they say they can be fair.
The maximum penalty for this crime, if he is convicted, is 12 months in jail plus a $2500 fine. In a compromise verdict, he might get convicted but only fined. If the woman, after effective cross-examination, doesn't seem completely credible, even a convservative law and order Virginia jury will acquit.
I don't know enough to predict an outcome but, despite the local religious fervor for the Redskins, at least the kind of biased jury theorized in the original post is not likely to be assembled.
