Voir Dire and the legal way to profile. Thread for trial lawyers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

I read somewhere that there was a book written for defense attorneys & prosecutors to figure out the profile and psychology of potential jurists. By asking a series of questions, they can pin down a person's background enough to make an educated guess as to how they would side with their side on a case.

Does anybody have the root of how this process began? I remember reading that it came down to one person who devised the system. The article always left me with the idea that it was a system that could have many applications, not all good.

[trof]

1. Interesting voir dire question:

Asked by a defense attorney when I was on jury duty:
"What bumper stickers do you have on your car?"

[wtmusic]

5. Are you required to answer?

:shrug:

[trof]

6. I guess not, but...

if I were an attorney I wouldn't pick a juror who wouldn't.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. Jury panels are put under oath

before the voir dire questions begin, so, yes, they are required to answer truthfully.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I only have experience as a potential juror.

The prosecutor asked the jury pool to indicate if anyone had a relative or a good friend who was either a judge, a prosecutor, or in law enforcement generally. I raised my hand and said I was a good friend of a state trooper in another state. I was then questioned about the relationship: how did I meet him, how long did I know him, what was the quality of our social encounters. I got disqualified as I expressly stated that my friend told me about how police and state troopers give tickets when there was no probable cause, they doctored "evidence" that they found, how they looked in closed glove compartments and trunks of cars without the owner's permission, etc. Guess I was a little too biased to sit in judgment and I was dismissed without comment.

So, to answer your question, the two attorneys (civil) or the prosecutor and defense attorney (criminal) go from general to specific inquiries until they get a sense of your mindset. You are expected to be forthright and use as few words as possible to get to the point.

[Karmakaze]

4. Last time I was called for jury service..

The prosecution challenged before I had even taken my seat. Of course I have some relatives (including a name sake) who are, shall we say, more likely to end up in the dock than the jury box :)

[teryang]

3. I've picked a few juries

As a defense attorney I have to go last in voir dire. The trick to the best voir dire is to identify key issues and relevant prejudice during preparation. Make your defense during the voir dire subtley. I don't allude to my facts directly unless I have to. This is a case of self defense. Could you consider a defense of self defense where the alleged female victim is said to have been attacked by male?

Sociological characterizations are good keys. Gender, occupation, family role, status, education, ethnicity, etc. If the judge or state doesn't elicit all the necessary relevant information you must get it yourself no matter how boring or mechcanical it may seem. Act interested in the personal characteristics, occupation, family etc to avoid this. Everyone likes attention unless something is bothering them.

Prior experiences affecting ability to be a fair and impartial finder of fact. Friends family relatives victim of crime? Any experience with domestic violence? Partiality toward role, gender, victimhood, single parents, drug use, violence, pre-marital sex, etc. If you get into these issues you will disqualify jurors.

Do you think that the justice system is broken? Do you feel criminals are coddled? Do you think there is too much emphasis on criminal rights? Are you here on a mission to remedy that? Prior jury experience obviously. Sometimes we miss the obvious. Like medical conditions or pressing obligations that affect their ability or desire to serve.

Ask the suspect jurors, if they had to go back and deliberate right now would they decide the case. Or do they think there must be something going on because he sits here charged with offense. Do you want to hear defendant's side of case? etc.

Any direct connection with court personnel, local law enforcement, prosecution office, etc. is a disqualifier, I've learned no exceptions to this rule, try to get challenge for cause but if necessary peremptory. Disclaimers and reassurances are virtually always bullshit. They will hurt you. Generally the first thing they do after the verdict of guilty or hung jury is report directly to the person they claim they hardly discuss such matters with them and discuss their role in it. They are looking for social reinforcement by persons they consider authority figures.

Will you stick to your principles if you believe the Defendant is not guilty, or will you cave in during deliberations because the majority is getting hungry or tired?

The best approach is to be yourself, try not to imitate others it doesn't work. Don't ask questions about the law or mistate the law. I emphasize that what the state just said is not the law, what I say is not the law, the judge is the authority on the law.

Ask open ended questions and follow up. Once the juror indicates he is not impartial or expresses doubt about his her impartiality, STOP, you're done.

Don't leave experts on the jury as they will fill in the blanks or sympathize with state witnesses who have the same occupational role.

Be aware of memes.

Destroy the improper use of language and role titles before they get started.

Example, S.A.N.E. sexual assault nurse examiner - an objective forensic examiner or an advocate for alleged victims of sexual assault? How can one be objective when they work for the "Advocacy center?" (they are part of the prosecution team so they won't have to pay for a doctor).

The use of the word victim while the presumption of innocence still applies.

I'm not familiar with any definitive book on this. Books written by so called experts whom I have met on isolated occasions, often don't do the topic justice.

I've heard 20 minute videos done by unknown trial lawyers and read two or three page cheat sheets by the same that save you the trouble. Some professional activities are learned by doing. I refuse to help younger colleagues with voir dire, it doesn't help, everyone does it differently. It needs to come naturally and you need to respond to spontaneous events that occur and other clues the jurors give you.

Lastly don't forget to ask the last open ended question which leads to the final phase of voir dire. Has anyone thought of something they want to mention which came up during our discussion which they have not yet had a chance to mention but feel maybe that they should?

Break a leg.

[Sisaruus]

7. I was asked if I could be fair, just and reasonable.

When one of the lawyers asked me if I could be fair, just and reasonable, I replied that I had no problem with fair and just but, as a menopausal woman, I wasn't promising reasonable to anyone.

They picked me anyway.