For both prosecution and defense lawyers, voir dire can work to identify jurors who can be fair and impartial, rather than unfair and biased.
For both prosecution and defense lawyers, voir dire can work to identify jurors who can be fair and impartial, rather than unfair and biased. Jeffery T. Frederick, director of the Jury Research Services National Legal Research Group, Inc., in Charlottesville, Va., spoke about selecting a jury and engaging jurors in the process during the program “Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: …
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. Without a strategic, well-prepared voir dire process, you ...
case are unique, so too are the personalities and “comfort levels” of the attorneys trying the case. What follows are some general observations that may be of assistance to counsel who have never conducted a voir dire examination and perhaps a refresher for those who have done so on numerous occasions. Pre-Trial Step One – Learn the Nuances
Oct 19, 2019 · Voir dire—French for “to speak the truth”—is the first opportunity a defense attorney has to interact with the jury directly in a criminal case. The second and final opportunity will be their closing argument. Everything else between the two are interaction between the court, the attorneys, and the witnesses.
There are four key strategies I recommend following for a successful voir dire. They can be quickly summed up as: FLEaT, or Fearless, Listen, Empathize (this work starts WAY before the trial and starts at home) and Trust.
Potential jurors are randomly selected from a pool of people who show up for jury duty. The judge asks standard questions to ensure that everyone is capable of serving on a jury (they’re a U.S. citizen, don’t have any hardships that would prevent them from sitting through the entire trial, etc.).
One of the most common examples is suspicion that you or your client will exaggerate the extent of injury to get more money. Another common bias is against motorcycle drivers, where there is a belief most bikers drive like maniacs and assume the risk for doing something so dangerous in the first place.
Now, she is the CEO and Founder of Shari Belitz Communications LLC, a company dedicated to teaching lawyers how to use social psychology to achieve favorable litigation outcomes.
Ask the jurors to “tell me more” when you know there is more of the story or their opinion on something that they are not yet revealing; this is particularly important in developing cause challenges.
Keith Mitnik is Senior Trial Lawyer at Morgan & Morgan, the largest personal injury law firm in America. Having obtained multiple verdicts in excess of a million dollars, he is widely recognized for his trial skills and knowledge. He is the author of Don’t Eat the Bruises: How to Foil Their Plans to Spoil Your Case, host of Mitnik’s Monthly Brushstrokes podcast, and is a frequent seminar presenter.
Voir dire—French for “to speak the truth”—is the first opportunity a defense attorney has to interact with the jury directly in a criminal case. The second and final opportunity will be their closing argument. Everything else between the two are interaction between the court, the attorneys, and the witnesses.
Jurors often walk into the courtroom inclined to believe a defendant “must be guilty of something” simply because they are accused of a crime by indictment. This inclination is multiplied when a client comes to court carrying the burden of bias or prejudice or is charged with a crime that inflames the passions of the jurors.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship .
However, peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race or class. Lawyers only have a specified number of peremptory challenges available— that number varies from state to state and depending on the nature of the case (a misdemeanor, felony, or death penalty trial).
The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the laws of every state. (See The Right to Trial by Jury .) Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as "voir dire," which is Latin for "to speak the truth.". In voir dire, the judge and attorneys for both sides ask ...
In the process known as "striking a jury," the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.
Challenges for Cause. Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available.
Judges will also dismiss jurors who can't put aside their feelings and apply the law impartially—that is, without actual or implied bias. Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn't be able to be impartial.
Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn't be able to be impartial. For example, a juror who states that she would never vote for a guilty verdict in any case because her religious beliefs prevent her from sitting in judgment of another would be excused for cause. Implied Bias.
There are many goals in conducting voir dire (e.g., building rapport, reinforcing your case themes), and a number of things to avoid.
Attorneys often want to ascertain demographic information and think this is the most reliable way to determine who you do not want on the jury.
Steer clear from questions in voir dire that can raise a strong cause challenge by your adversary. For example, avoid questions that provide jurors an opportunity to give answers favorable about the themes you plan to discuss in your case and about positive views they hold for your client or its products.
In voir dire, you should ask questions about jurors’ attitudes and beliefs. You want to ask about people’s views on government regulations, corporations and jury damage awards. Ask questions in such a way that the people who raise their hands are the jurors you who will ultimately disagree with your case.
Another useful predictor of juror leanings is life experiences. Especially revealing are any experiences that are similar to that of the plaintiff, such as personal injuries, working conditions, or even if the juror’s age approaches the plaintiff’s.
Now, we know that for some attorneys asking these types of questions goes against what they have been taught about how to ask voir dire questions. We’ve come across a number of attorneys who think it’s best to ask questions where people don’t actually raise their hands.
When used effectively, voir dire can help attorneys make the most of their jury panel and be confident in their strikes. When you aren’t sure what you should ask, give us a call and we can help with your voir dire development to determine key questions to include.
Counsel should be generally reluctant to object during voir dire because such objections are rarely sustained and potential jurors may view objections as an attempt to hide information, or as being obstructive. If, however, the State makes inaccurate statements of law which could adversely affect the defendant, an objection should be made promptly. If the Court sustains the objection, the defendant may be entitled to a curative instruction which would re-enforce his position. If not successful, the objection is required to preserve the record, as even comments on a defendant's failure to testify may not be deemed plain error. See State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000); State v. Collins, 42 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. App. 2001).
Voir dire is universally viewed as an extremely important aspect of trial. At one extreme, failure to conduct adequate voir dire can result in ineffective assistance of counsel and reversal of a conviction. Knese v. State, 85 S.W.3d 628, 632-33 (Mo. banc 2002). At the other extreme, volumes have been written about the art and science of conducting voir dire to the ends of not only selecting an unbiased jury, but to also begin trying the case and persuading the jury. While those topics are beyond the scope of this presentation, Judge Dierker of the City of St. Louis suggests the following "Do's and Don'ts:"
The legal justifications for voir dire are to determine whether grounds exist for challenges for cause, and to obtain information for the exercise of peremptory challenges. State v. Clark, 981 S.W.2d 143 (Mo. 1998). As a practical matter, voir dire is equally important for beginning to educate the jurors about your case, preparing them for anything you do not want them shocked by later in the case, and perhaps even beginning to argue your case. Being successful at voir dire is no different than any other part of a trial. There is no magic, no smoke and mirrors, only hard work and preparation.
Jury selection necessarily entails devising some system for keeping notes in an organized manner for ready reference during the selection process. Since the mechanics of jury selection vary based upon local procedures and individual judges, the system may need to be modified from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The juror or the juror's personal representative, may provide the court with documentation from a physician licensed to practice medicine verifying that a mental or physical condition renders the person unfit for jury service for a period of up to twenty-four months. § 494.425, R.S.Mo.
At the conclusion voir dire, the panel is generally excused, and the parties are given the opportunity to make challenges for cause. The bases and procedures for making challenges for cause are set forth in § 494.470, R.S.Mo.:
As we all know, a defendant in a criminal trial has the right, under the United States Constitution, to not to testify. For a variety of reasons lawyers may advise clients to rely on the presumption of innocence and not testify at trial- and that could happen in this case.
Voir dire (to seek the truth ) is the jury selection process and no, it is not considered tampering to select certain jurors and not others. Many books have been written about the process and there are experts in jury selection. A venire (large panel of potential jurors) is questioned on their qualifications and jurors are excused for cause, for hardship etc. Each side has a certain number of preemptory challenges to stoke juros for reasons known only to them.
Each side gets to ask the jurors questions to see if the person can be a good juror. Each side can have jurors excused that they do not like. It is only the people that are not objectionable to either side that end up as jurors.
It is not jury tampering. Jury tampering is when a party tries to influence a juror's vote, usually by promising them in return. Attorney's have a right to challenge juror's for cause and a number of peremptory challenges which vary by the type of case. It is improper for an attorney to deliberately use a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror based solely on race, gender or other non-relevant factors.
They do not collaborate; they each have their own science or art to attempting to put those "kindred spirits" to their own position/client on and strike those who might be less supportive of their respective perspective.