Aug 27, 2020 · Voir dire is the process of examining potential jurors to determine whether they are fit to serve for a particular trial. For trial lawyers, the goal of the voir dire process is to ensure that no members of the jury are harboring any biases that could jeopardize the outcome of the case.
When I conduct voir dire, I avoid asking questions which call for “yes” and “no” answers. You lead witnesses on cross-examination, and probably should not ask a question where you don’t already know the answer. But in voir dire, you must ask questions where you don’t already know the answer. It is the very purpose of the exercise ...
Adopt the proper orientation. Approach your voir dire questioning as a “conversation,” not a job interview. Be confident, reinforce juror participation and listen to jurors to yield the best results. Set the stage for jurors. Explain the process, stressing honesty and candor and helping jurors acknowledge the filters and biases we all possess.
Jan 19, 2010 · The dissent, written by Thomas, said that the question of whether a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to open voir dire was undecided, at least until today’s ruling.
When I conduct voir dire, I avoid asking questions which call for “yes” and “no” answers. You lead witnesses on cross-examination, and probably should not ask a question where you don’t already know the answer. But in voir dire, you must ask questions where you don’t already know the answer. It is the very purpose of the exercise.
It is nice to be important; it is more important to be nice. Simply be polite, especially to courtroom personnel. The bailiff or court’s clerk will be that jury’s best friend by the time deliberations begin. Listening, not imitation, is the sincerest form of flattery. When you listen to a juror’s answer, and ask pertinent follow-up questions, you validate that juror’s point of view. You are showing that person their answer matters.
If some jurors are not participating in voir dire, ask them directly for their views so that you know what they think and all jurors know that they can’t hide from the questioning. Beyond the questions, Frederick says you have to pay attention to the juror’s nonverbal communication.
Adopt the proper orientation. Approach your voir dire questioning as a “conversation,” not a job interview. Be confident, reinforce juror participation and listen to jurors to yield the best results.
Successful voir dire requires that jurors talk (and not just listen to the attorneys talk at them). Using techniques such as the initial background summary (where all jurors answer three to five basic background questions) and having all jurors raise their hands will increase participation by jurors at the start of voir dire.
Two useful approaches to revitalizing participation are: (a) interspersing majority response questions and (b) using the springboard method where you ask one juror a question and use the answer to talk with other jurors about the topic.
Harness the power of “reflective” questions. Using questions that ask jurors to reflect on how certain factors might affect their decisions (reflective questions) are more likely to uncover bias than questions that simply ask if certain factors would affect their decision (nonreflective questions).
Jurors are more willing to acknowledge difficulties in doing something than in their ability to do it. Using questions that focus on difficulties and not abilities gives jurors an opportunity to admit where they would have problems.
Another key to look for is leadership and group dynamics. Forepersons tend to be drawn from higher status occupations, those with prior jury service, those with relevant experience, those with leadership experience, those who exhibit stronger responses during voir dire and those who blog or maintain online personal journals.
In the U.S., the voir dire process is used to choose jurors for a civil or criminal trial that are likely to be impartial and fair in their judgment. Questions are intended to weed out people who have strong opinions about the subject matter, who already have personal knowledge about the case, or who may have a bias for or against either party to the trial. Individuals who work in certain professions, such as law enforcement, are often dismissed, as they tend to have preconceived ideas about certain issues, especially in criminal matters. In a criminal trial, a potential juror who is prejudiced against the punishment that might be levied, should the defendant be found guilty, is likely to be dismissed.
Historically, the legal term voir dire referred to an oath required of all jurors to tell the truth, or to say what is true. This meant that the juror promised to be impartial and honest in hearing testimony, viewing evidence, and in rendering judgment. In past centuries, a challenge against any potential juror would be tried by other jurors already chosen, rather than by decision between the parties and the judge.
Related Legal Terms and Issues 1 Bias – A preconceived opinion that prevents a person from impartially evaluating facts that have been presented for determination; a prejudice. 2 Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense. 3 Jurisdiction – The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the geographical region of authority to enforce justice.
During both civil and criminal trials, either party may introduce expert witnesses to give testimony about any variety of issues. This may range from testimony as to the accuracy of certain scientific or forensic testing procedures, to medical testimony about a party’s condition. Any time a witness is called as an expert in some field, the opposing party has an opportunity to first question him about his qualifications, what institutional employment he has held, and perhaps what expert publications he has made that qualify him to offer expert testimony. This is known as voir dire of an expert witness.
This is because she is highly likely to be biased against the defendant before ever hearing any evidence.
Mary has been called as a potential juror in the case of a fatal accident caused by a drunk driver. The driver is being tried for two counts of second degree murder. Mary’s aunt was killed by a drunk driver 10 years ago. During the voir dire process, the defense attorney asks Mary if she has ever known anyone who was involved in a drunk driving accident. Upon learning of Mary’s aunt, the attorney dismisses Mary from the jury pool. This is because she is highly likely to be biased against the defendant before ever hearing any evidence.
Potential jurors are notified by mail of the date and time to report to the courthouse for jury selection. Once there, each person is brought into the room and questioned by the parties or their attorneys, as well as the judge to determine whether he or she has any bias about the case, or about either party to the case.
Psychologists say jurors don’t want to find for Plaintiff’s as it is an acknowledgment that they too can be injured by doctors they hire to treat them. Are you strong enough to acknowledge how helpless we are and how are at the mercy of doctors?
Tell the jurors there are no right or wrong answers to the questions you will be asking . All that you are asking of the jury is that they be honest and forthright in their answers.
Again, Testimony is evidence.
Improper voir dire. Any judge would sustain the objection and tell her to save it for closing argument — if the objection were made.
She describes the so-called “one witness rule,” which says that a jury may convict on the testimony of a single witness if that testimony is believed beyond a reasonable doubt.
What consider actually means is “meaningfully consider.” Some jurors will consider probation in the same way they would consider leaping out the window if it were suggested. In order to give effect to the statute, instead of writing their own statutes, jurors must be able to give meaningful consideration to the full range of punishment.
Raise your hand if you told a lie as a child. Now raise your hand if you lied about being sexually abused.
If you’re defending an allegation of child sex abuse, you cannot do a bad voir dire. You have to be on top of your game. You have to change the tone of the voir dire immediately. The prosecutrix has just spent an hour preparing the jury to disembowel your client. You have to change the story of the case in the first 30 seconds.
A prosecutor can’t lose such a case in voir dire but she might, if she performs a competent voir dire, win it there. (Illustrative of two maxims: 1) being a prosecutor doesn’t necessarily prepare you to be a defender; and 2) a prosecutor can win all his cases and think he’s brilliant; a defender wins some and knows he is.) 2. ...
This is a correct statement of legal sufficiency, but an improper instruction on the law. The jury gets to decide whether the date of the offense was on or about the date charged; it is improper to force a definition on them (just as, in Texas, it is improper to impose a definition for BRD on them).
If you think of voir dire more like a talk show where the jurors are your “special guests” who you’re trying to get to know as opposed to students at a lecture hall, you’ll learn more about whether you want to seat them.
Sound new agey? It’s not. Whenever anyone responds to you directly, you get the opportunity to hear his voice and watch his body language. Is he looking directly at you or down? Are his arms folded across his chest? Does he seem annoyed or interested? No matter what the person’s job or neighborhood — if the prospective juror is pleasantly responsive, interested, and seems just plain “nice,” you might want to think of keeping that person. “Nice” goes a long way for the defendant. It’s not to say that “nice” jurors won’t convict, but at least they’ll give your client a fair shot.
When the judge asks them close-ended questions like, “You all promise you can be fair and impartial?”, they sit there dumbly, eyes glazed, nodding their heads. Close-ended questions by lawyers during voir dire have the same effect. They often provoke perplexed looks, annoyance, and boredom. You’ll have plenty of time to argue your legal theories in summation.
From Above the Law. 1) Stereotypes don’t always work. If you’re a defense attorney defending a client charged with a low-level violent crime, the knee-jerk reaction is to kick off the juror who’s a banker but keep the social worker or nurse, kick off anyone who watches FOX, but keep the people who loved “Serial,” and always reject anyone affiliated ...
Even if the evidence against your client is overwhelming, you can still win if you pick the right jury. The reverse is also true. Pick a majority of people looking to convict and no matter what the facts, they will. That’s how important selecting a jury is.
Some states don’t let attorneys do much of anything when picking a jury. Other states, though, open the floor to them, and there’s no better way to figure out who’ll vote for an acquittal than by doing a solid voir dire. Even if the evidence against your client is overwhelming, you can still win if you pick the right jury.