Voir Dire
Jury selection begins
with venire, the drawing of a panel of prospective jurors. This panel is
usually chosen from people on the voter's registration list, or from other
sources, depending on whether it is a state or federal court. The number
of people on the panel varies. Once the panel of jurors has been drawn,
the next step is to select a panel of 6-12 jurors for the case, a process
known as voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to select an unbiased
and representative panel. During this stage, prospective jurors are questioned
by the attorneys and the judge to eliminate anyone that is biased, related
to the case, or prejudiced. Jurors that are excused for any of these reasons
are excluded from service for cause. In addition, attorneys are
given a set number of peremptory challenges, which allow attorneys
to exclude without reason a particular number of prospective jurors from
the eventual jury.
Jury selection consultants
aid attorneys (usually defense attorneys) by using empirically based procedures
to detect bias during jury selection. Consultants also aid attorneys with
the preparation of witnesses. Voir dire has three main goals: to elicit
information from jurors, to establish a relationship between the attorneys
and the jurors, and to educate the jury about the defense's and prosecution's
case. . Attorneys must develop the theory of their case thoroughly before
jury selection begins, and the jury consultant should know the case theory
thoroughly. With this knowledge, consultants administer community surveys
and focus groups to ascertain how individual characteristics relate to
reactions toward the case. Jury selection consultants also conduct post-trial
interviews with people who served on juries, and with people who were excused
from service. This enables consultants to determine how juror characteristics
may relate to juror decision making. Findings from these studies enable
consultants to determine which prospective jurors should be eliminated
from serving on subsequent cases.
Research findings seem
to support the claim that scientific jury selection works better than traditional
methods for cases in which juror attitudes are particularly important,
such as in capital cases. In one study, researchers examined the outcomes
of 35 capital trials (Nietzel & Dillehay, 1986). They found that juries
recommended the death sentence at a rate of 61.1% in the 17 cases in which
no jury consultant was used, and in contrast, juries recommended the death
sentence at a rate of 33.3% in the 18 cases in which a jury consultant
was used. Scientific jury selection, however, is not as effective when
juror attitude variables are weak. One study, for example, found that there
are no differences in outcome between conventional and scientific jury
selection, except for when there is a definite relationship between personality
or demographic variables and jurors' votes (Horowitz, 1980). At any rate,
jury panels can never be truly representative or unbiased. Not everyone
is called to participate in the process; thus, not all segments of the
population are represented on juries. Attorneys, moreover, seek out jurors
that will benefit their side of the case. If one attorney is more motivated
and skilled than the other in selecting a jury, then the outcome may not
be just.
References
Fahringer, H.P. (1980). "In the valley of the blind" --Jury selection in a criminal case. Trial Diplomacy Journal, Summer, 34-54.
Horowitz, I.A. (1980). Juror selection: A comparison of two methods in several criminal cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 86-99.
Nietzel, M.T., & Dillehay, R.C. (1986). Psychological consultation in the courtrooms. New York: Pergamon Press.
Wrightsman, L.S., Nietzel, M.T., & Fortune, W.H. (1994).
Psychology and the legal system. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company