▁fel on ▁j ury ▁ex clusion ▁almost ▁always ▁origin ate ▁from ▁interested ▁lit ig ants , ▁some ▁sch ol ars ▁cont end ▁that ▁" it ▁is ▁the ▁interests ▁of ▁the ▁ex cluded ▁fel ons ▁that ▁are ▁most ▁directly ▁imp licated ." ▁ ▁Yet ▁attacks ▁on ▁these ▁blank et ▁prohib itions ▁lev ied ▁by ▁ex cluded ▁fel on ▁jur ors ▁have ▁failed ▁consist ently . ▁The ▁United ▁States ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁does ▁not ▁recognize ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁sit ▁on ▁a ▁j ury ▁as ▁fundamental . ▁It ▁has ▁been ▁pointed ▁out ▁that , ▁although ▁law m akers ▁assert ▁that ▁fel on ▁j ury ▁ex clusion ▁measures ▁protect ▁the ▁integrity ▁of ▁the ▁adj ud ic ative ▁process , ▁as ▁fel ons ▁" lack ▁the ▁requ is ite ▁prob ity " ▁to ▁serve ▁on ▁a ▁j ury ▁and ▁are ▁" in her ently ▁bi ased ," ▁many ▁of ▁the ▁states ▁subscri bing ▁to ▁this ▁practice ▁allow ▁fel ons ▁to ▁practice ▁law . ▁But ▁that ▁is ▁a ▁double ▁standard ▁only ▁if ▁it ▁is ▁pres umed ▁that ▁those ▁who ▁judge ▁the ▁arguments ▁of ▁both ▁sides ▁in ▁a ▁case ▁are ▁allowed ▁to ▁be ▁as ▁bi ased ▁as ▁those ▁arg uing ▁for ▁each ▁side . ▁ ▁L oss ▁of ▁right ▁to ▁possess ▁fire ar ms ▁Since ▁ 1 9 6 8 , ▁fel ons ▁are ▁regarded ▁by ▁the ▁federal ▁government , ▁and ▁most ▁US ▁states , ▁as ▁being ▁" pro hib ited ▁persons " ▁under ▁US ▁law ▁( 1 8 ▁U . S . ▁Code ▁§ ▁ 9 2 2 ( g