Let’s look closer at how lawyers and judges question potential jurors. The questioning of potential jurors follows different rules depending on the jurisdiction (that is, if the case is in federal or state court). Even within a jurisdiction, trial judges often have their own methods for picking a jury.
Even within a jurisdiction, trial judges often have their own methods for picking a jury. But no matter where the case is tried, all potential jurors are placed under oath, and though it is rare, a juror could be prosecuted for giving an intentionally false answer.
A prospective juror questionnaire may have quite a bit of blank space, implying that open-ended questions must be answered with a lengthy response. This is a psychological tactic to encourage you, the prospective juror, to provide details that you aren't explicitly asked to disclose.
Before it even begins, a trial can be won or lost during jury selection. In a procedure called voir dire, lawyers and, sometimes, judges question potential jurors from a pool of citizens summoned to court to serve jury duty. Voir dire (vwar deer) means “to speak the truth.
Its primary purpose is to make sure that the jurors can listen fairly and impartially to the evidence and render a verdict in accordance with ...
Experienced attorneys ask questions to get a sense of how a juror will respond to the evidence and arguments in the case about to be tried. In most federal courts, lawyers submit questions to the judge, who will then question the potential jurors in open court. In state courts, however, lawyers are typically permitted to question ...
To expedite the selection process, potential jurors sometimes complete written questionnaires before meeting with the lawyers or the judge. These questionnaires help to quickly eliminate certain potential jurors—such as people who do not speak English well enough to follow testimony. They also identify subject areas, like prior experiences with law enforcement or the courts, for follow-up questions in the courtroom. If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time. Once preliminary issues, such as juror availability and competency have been covered, lawyers and judges move on to more substantive questions.
Where voir dire uncovers a legitimate concern about a conflict of interest or a potential bias, the judge will normally dismiss the juror “for cause.” A “for cause” dismissal means the court has agreed with at least one lawyer’s argument about the unsuitability of a potential juror (or has reached this conclusion on its own). A lawyer can raise an unlimited number of “for cause” challenges during jury selection.
If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time.
Then defense counsel may choose to dismiss those jurors by using what is called a “peremptory challenge.” Unlike “for cause” challenges, each side gets a fixed number of peremptory challenges. By using a peremptory challenge, a lawyer can dismiss a potential juror from the case without giving any reason to the judge.
The Process of Jury Selection (Voir Dire) The questioning of potential jurors follows different rules depending on the jurisdiction (that is, if the case is in federal or state court). Even within a jurisdiction, trial judges often have their own methods for picking a jury. But no matter where the case is tried, ...
Formal statements made by the plaintiff and the defendant in a lawsuit that detail the facts, allegations, and defenses involved in the litigation; the complaint and answer are part of the pleadings.
A series of written questions for which written answers are prepared and then signed under oath by a party to a lawsuit, usually with the assistance of the party's attorney.
A motion by either party to a lawsuit at the close of the pleadings requesting the court to decide the issue solely on the pleadings without proceeding to trial. The motion will be granted only if no facts are in dispute.
The pleading made by a plaintiff alleging wrongdoing on the part of the defendant; the document that, when filed with a court, initiates a lawsuit.
A written voluntary statement of facts, confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it and made before a person having the authority to administer the oath or affirmation.
A written or oral application to a court for a ruling or order, made before trial.
fixed as a percentage (usually 33 percent ) of a client's recovery in certain types of lawsuits, such as a personal-injury lawsuit. If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the attorney receives no fee, but the client will have to reimburse the attorney for all out-of-pocket costs incurred.
these variables may be less important in real cases, however, and attorneys tend not to focus on jurors' personality characteristics when selecting jurors, probably because they are difficult to identify.
When the evidence in a case clearly favors one side or the other juries will decide the case in favor of the side with the stronger evidence. But when the evidence is ambiguous ex. the prosecutions case is weak, jurors are liberated and allowed to rely on their assumptions, sentiments, and biases in short, on extralegal evidence in reaching a verdict.
group questions, then individual follow - up questions. both attorneys and judge, sensitive topics discussed at judge's bench/chambers, many potential jurors report feeling like questions are 1. irrelevant, 2. overly personal, and / or 3. likely to make them feel uncomfortable. Challenges for cause.
a social psychological framework that proposes that most white jurors are motivated to avoid showing racial bias and when cued about racial consideration ex. when the crime is racially charged or when jurors are instructed to avoid prejudice, they tend to render color-blind decisions.
The forum in which the judge and/ or the attorneys (both defense attorney and prosecutor) question prospective jurors. A french term meaning to speak the truth. Focus on juror's ability and willingness to be fair and impartial. Defendants have the opportunity (via attorney) to screen prospective jurors for prejudice.
Initially, practitioners of scientific jury selection tried to determine which demographic characteristics of jurors were related to their sympathy for one side or the other in trials. More recently, trial consultants have broadened their work to include 1. pretrial assessment of reactions to the evidence and 2. the development of themes that organize the evidence for specific jurors likely to be swayed by this approach. There is some evidence that science oriented consultation may be useful in cases in which jurors' attitudes about the evidence are especially important.
these questions are asked so that they could be more honest (attorneys have there own reason).
When the court is notified of a jury trial, the clerk’s office is also notified. A random list of names is then generated from the state’s driver’s license records. Those people are sent a summons ordering them to appear for jury duty on the date and time specified on the summons.
On the trial day, the State and the defense will convene in the courtroom. Some courts require prospective jurors to fill out a juror questionnaire ahead of time while some require the questionnaire be filled out on the morning of the trial.
If you are currently facing criminal charges in the State of Tennessee, it is in your best interest to consult with an experienced criminal lawyer at Bennett & Michael as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected. Contact the team today by calling 615-898-1560 to schedule your appointment.
In a criminal trial, picking the right jurors is critical to a defendant’s chances at an acquittal. During the voir dire process, which roughly translated from Latin means “to speak the truth,” criminal defense attorneys have the opportunity to find out a great deal about potential jurors.
Why voir dire is necessary. With voir dire, the goal is supposed to be to be impartial jurors. But if they are honest, both prosecutors and defense attorneys will admit that they attempt to stack the jury deck with those who are likely to rule on their side.
When a defendant’s liberty — or even life — is at risk with a guilty verdict, properly conducted voir dire can be a game-changer. Properly framed, each question can evoke candid responses based on deeper thinking by the juror. Open-ended questions elicit far more revealing answers than a “yes” or a “no.”
In state and federal court, voir dire may be conducted by the attorneys, the judge or even the clerk. In the latter instance when the court clerk winnows down the jury pool, it’s done with questions submitted by the attorneys and approved by the court. The big five. With that in mind, if you are facing trial for a criminal offense, ...
Attorneys can exclude jurors either for cause, with unlimited usage, or via a peremptory challenge — usually limited to three per side in federal court. Attorneys exclude jurors using the latter process to reject those jurors for actual or perceived biases that might be hard to prove otherwise for cause.
With permission of the judge and acquiescence from the opposing counsel, jurors answer written questionnaires. This may be preceded by a mock trial and other pretrial research designed to achieve a favorable outcome for the client (in the case of the defense).
In January 2020, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an important ruling, Kazadi v. State, with respect to the voir dire process. Kazadi overruled a 1960s decision from the Court that limited the types of questions that could be posed to prospective jurors. Specifically, it was deemed inappropriate to ask jurors any questions “concerning the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and a defendant’s right to remain silent.” Under Kazadi, such questions may now be asked.
This process is known as voir dire, and it is intended to screen out any jurors who might not be impartial for one reason or another.
Before the Court of Special Appeals, there was no question the judge’s actions violated Kazadi. The only issue for the appellate court to decide was whether or not the defendant properly preserved his objection for appeal, given that his attorney told the court at the end of voir dire that the selected jury was acceptable.
More recently, in February 2021, the Court of Special Appeals applied Kazadi and ordered a new jury trial in the case of Ringgold v. State. This case involved a man tried for burglary in 2019, shortly before the Court of Appeals issued its Kazadi decision. During voir dire, the defense asked the judge to question the prospective jurors on whether they had “any objection to or reservation” to the defendant’s legal presumption of innocence. The judge declined to pose the question. The jury was seated and proceeded to find the defendant guilty.
The Court said the objection was properly preserved. Under Maryland law, the fact that defense counsel objected to the judge’s failure to pose the requested question was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. The fact the trial proceeded anyways did not constitute “acquiescence” to the incorrect ruling. The defendant in this case was therefore legally entitled to a new trial based on the trial judge’s “innocent” mistake.