Term
| Do you want a jury? two considerations: |
|
Definition
1. who is the judge? - in a central assignment system you might not know till you go to trial;
2. does your case have jury appeal? e.g. personal injury cases have emotional appeal; alternatively in criminal cases with heinous crimes, bench trials will be preferable (in criminal cases, right to jury trial can be waived only by knowing and intelligent waiver by client) |
|
|
Term
| systems to question jurors |
|
Definition
| several (lawyers/judge/hybrid/questionnaires/individual) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. open approach - can ask anything
2. restrictive approach (increasingly common) judges define an allowable question according to whether it is designed to learn about the juror or to convey info to the juror - the former is allowable, latter is not |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| every juror in the entire pool (venire) is seated in courtroom; when all questioning is finished (and any for cause jurors have been dismissed) parties designate jurors against whom they wish to exercise their peremptories; |
|
|
Term
| advantages/disadvantage of strike system |
|
Definition
disadvantage - requires questioning every juror
advantages (4) -
1. avoids gamesmanship of traditional system;
2. keeps jurors from knowing which side excused them; 3. lawyers know background of entire venire before using any peremptories;
4. alternate jurors don't know who they are |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| traditional system; fill jury box with necessary number of jurors; they are questioned one by one; then if plaintiff wishes to use peremptory, they are used at that time; process continues until plaintiff "tenders panel" to defense; then defense goes through same steps and uses peremptores; then when tendered back to plaintiff, plaintiff can exercise peremptories; back and forth until both sides accept panel |
|
|
Term
| advantage/disadvantages of panel system |
|
Definition
advantage - only jurors in box need be questioned
disadvantages - permits gamesmanship during selection process; forces lawyers to exercise peremptories w/o knowing background of whole venire; identifies jurors who are alternates |
|
|
Term
| types of challenges to jurors |
|
Definition
1. challenge for cause
2. peremptory challenge |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| can be used for (almost) any reason a party sees fit; number is fixed by statute |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| can't use peremptories to eliminate members of the defendant's race solely on account of their race (in a criminal case) |
|
|
Term
| never run out of peremptories |
|
Definition
| under the strike system this is not as serious of a problem because all the jurors will be questioned before exercising challenges, but under the panel system, this is vital because you will be exercising challenges without knowing the backgrounds of the remaining unquestioned jurors - always save at least one |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| if panel system is being used, you must determine whether you will be able to reinvade the jury and exercise peremptories on jurors you previously accepted - find out in advance |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| varies by jurisdiction; type of case; number of parties etc. |
|
|
Term
| how challenges are exercised: |
|
Definition
varies; with strike system sometimes use one list or two (in which case sometimes both sides strike same juror); list is given to clerk who calls jurors who aren't struck; list only has as many jurors as necessary plus two alternates
in panel system, sometimes are at side bar and judge will excuse jurors; sometimes will have to excuse jurors in open court |
|
|
Term
| three specific purposes during voir dire: |
|
Definition
1. present yourself and your party in the most favorable light; you must show jury you are confident, committed, and prepared; you must humanize your party
2. learn about jurors beliefs and attitudes so you can exercise your peremptory challenges intelligently
3. familiarize the jurors with applicable legal and factual concepts if permitted by the judge |
|
|
Term
| basic background characteristics that are seen as the best (though imperfect) predictors of attitude |
|
Definition
1. age
2. education
3. employment history
4. residence history
5. marital and family history
6. hobbies and interests
7. reading, television, computers
8. participation in organizations
9. experiences in life related to the case on trial |
|
|
Term
| other considerations during jury selection |
|
Definition
1. likeability
2. body language
3. persuaders, participants, nonparticipants |
|
|
Term
| strikes and persuaders/participants/nonparticipants |
|
Definition
| first strike jurors who are persuaders who are unfavorable to your side; second use challenges to strike jurors who are nonparticipants and appear to have unfavorable attitudes to your side |
|
|
Term
| two things to prepare before voir dire: |
|
Definition
1. juror profile chart (list of good juror characteristics and bad ones)
2. jury question checklist (types of topics to ask about - serves as basis for a motion to request questions in jurisdictions where judge does questioning) |
|
|
Term
| effective technique for asking jury questions: |
|
Definition
reciprocity and empathy: reciprocity means before you get you need to give - e.g. self disclosure by the questioner, if the judge will allow it, significantly improves self-disclosure by person being questioned
empathy means you need to create a friendly, non-judgmental atmosphere before candid self-disclosure will occur |
|
|
Term
| style of questions to ask jurors |
|
Definition
| short, open-ended questions draw more substantial responses |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| draw out basic biographical info |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| get the explanations and attitudes behind the basic facts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| never embarrass a juror; never force one to reveal anything embarrassing about job/family/education etc.; let them know at the beginning to let you know if there are topics they are uncomfortable talking about |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| in most jurisdictions where lawyers do all the questioning, most allow the lawyers to give a short, nonargumentative statement summarizing the case |
|
|
Term
| summary checklist for jury selection |
|
Definition
1. how many jurors and alternates will be selected
2. what jury questioning system will be used
3. what kinds of questions will be permitted (about legal concepts or no?)
4. what jury selection system will be used
5. how many challenges will I have and how will I exercise them?
6. what are the best/worst jurors for my profile chart?
7. what topics do I need to cover when questioning jurors?
8. have I submitted written voir dire questions to the court (if the judge will do the questioning or permit a written questionnaire?)
9. Have I prepared my questioning style to create honest, candid communication with the jurors? |
|
|
