Difference between revisions of "Voir Dire"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 18: Line 18:
 
===Building Rapport===  
 
===Building Rapport===  
  
As noted above, the first goal of voir dire is to build a rapport with the jury. This means fostering an environment wherein jurors feel comfortable sharing. It requires being an attentive, active listener, in addition to the deliberate use of conversational techniques that employ empathy, respect, and genuineness. These techniques include reflection, clarification, and self-disclosure:  
+
As noted above, the first goal of voir dire is to build rapport with the jury. This means fostering an environment wherein jurors feel comfortable sharing. It requires being an attentive, active listener, in addition to the deliberate use of conversational techniques that employ empathy, respect, and genuineness. These techniques include reflection, clarification, and self-disclosure:  
  
*Reflection: reflecting the jurors opinion back to him, or out toward the group. May consist of summarizing a response a juror gives to a question, paraphrasing it and shaping it into something the entire panel can better understand, looping a response into a follow-up question, or revisiting an opinion a juror offered earlier during voir dire (e.g. "Mr. Smith mentioned that he believes police officers always tell the truth; does anyone agree or disagree with  
+
*Reflection: reflecting the jurors opinion back to him, or out toward the group. May consist of summarizing a response a juror gives to a question, paraphrasing it and shaping it into something the entire panel can better understand, looping a response into a follow-up question, or revisiting an opinion a juror offered earlier during voir dire (e.g. "Mr. Smith mentioned that he believes police officers always tell the truth; does anyone agree or disagree with this statement?").
  
  
Line 34: Line 34:
 
*'''Strikes for Cause''' - A strike for cause comes about when a juror expresses an opinion or has some condition that makes him unfit as a matter of law to sit as a juror in the case. Examples of grounds for strikes for cause would be a relationship to the parties, having formed an opinion about the defendant's guilt or innocence, or feelings or beliefs that would affect the juror's ability to judge the facts in an impartial manner (e.g. an individual who expresses a religious objection to sitting in judgment of another person, or a juror in a drug case who does not believe that drugs should be illegal and will refuse to impose punishment). In addition, a juror might be struck for medical reasons that affect his or her ability to sit through or listen to the presentation of the case. There is no limit on strikes for cause.  
 
*'''Strikes for Cause''' - A strike for cause comes about when a juror expresses an opinion or has some condition that makes him unfit as a matter of law to sit as a juror in the case. Examples of grounds for strikes for cause would be a relationship to the parties, having formed an opinion about the defendant's guilt or innocence, or feelings or beliefs that would affect the juror's ability to judge the facts in an impartial manner (e.g. an individual who expresses a religious objection to sitting in judgment of another person, or a juror in a drug case who does not believe that drugs should be illegal and will refuse to impose punishment). In addition, a juror might be struck for medical reasons that affect his or her ability to sit through or listen to the presentation of the case. There is no limit on strikes for cause.  
  
*'''Peremptory Strikes''' - Peremptory strikes, on the other hand, are those that
+
 
  
 
===Using Strikes===
 
===Using Strikes===
  
Strategically, it is in the Defendant's interest to have as many unfavorable jurors as possible struck many routes for accomplishing this task, but one of the best is to focus on subject matter that, assuming it is relevant to the case at bar, is also polarizing, or tends to elicit controversial opinions. Examples include police officer testimony (whether it should be credited above layperson testimony), a defendant's choice not to testify at his own trial, whether they equate an arrest with guilt, attitudes toward the burden of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and attitudes toward specific hotbutton issues implicated by the case to be tried (e.g. drug use, sexual abuse, disrespect/aggression toward law enforcement, obscenity, etc). If for example a juror stated that he assumes guilt from the fact a person was arrested, counsel would want to reflect or clarify his answer, then open it up to the remainder of the panel for discussion. In doing so, hopefully others who share that opinion would speak up, and counsel would have grounds to move to strike these unfavorable jurors for cause.  
+
Strategically, it is in the Defendant's interest to strike multiple routes for accomplishing this task, but one of the most effective is to focus on subject matter that, assuming it is relevant to the case at bar, is also polarizing, or tends to elicit controversial opinions. Examples include police officer testimony (whether it should be credited above layperson testimony), a defendant's choice not to testify at his own trial, whether they equate an arrest with guilt, attitudes toward the burden of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and attitudes toward specific hotbutton issues implicated by the case to be tried (e.g. drug use, sexual abuse, disrespect/aggression toward law enforcement, obscenity, etc). If for example a juror stated that he assumes guilt from the fact a person was arrested, counsel would want to reflect or clarify his answer, then open it up to the remainder of the panel for discussion. In doing so, hopefully others who share that opinion would speak up, and counsel would have grounds to move to strike these unfavorable jurors for cause.  
  
 
Frequently, the court will attempt to rehabilitate jurors instead of striking them, by asking them whether they can set their opinions aside and follow the law. Often, the judge or the prosecutor will do so by asking a series of leading questions. Where this occurs, counsel should consider objecting. Counsel should also anticipate attempts to rehabilitate jurors, and ask questions in a manner that renders attempts to rehabilitate ineffectual.
 
Frequently, the court will attempt to rehabilitate jurors instead of striking them, by asking them whether they can set their opinions aside and follow the law. Often, the judge or the prosecutor will do so by asking a series of leading questions. Where this occurs, counsel should consider objecting. Counsel should also anticipate attempts to rehabilitate jurors, and ask questions in a manner that renders attempts to rehabilitate ineffectual.
Line 44: Line 44:
 
===Communicate the Defense Theory and Theme===
 
===Communicate the Defense Theory and Theme===
  
The last goal of voir dire is to advance the theory and theme of the defense. Theory is essentially the legal explanation of why the defendant did not commit the crime. For example, in a drug possession case involving joint possession by three parties, a theory of the defense might be that the drugs belonged to the co-defendant alone. On the other hand, the theme of the case is the "sales pitch"; the words or phrases that explain or characterize the theory in a way that is memorable. Using the same drug case as an example, a theme might be "close enough for government work" or "one out of three might be good in baseball, but it's not enough for the law."  
+
The last goal of voir dire is to advance the theory and theme of the defense. Theory is the legal explanation of why the defendant did not commit the crime. For example, in a drug possession case involving joint possession by three parties, a theory of the defense might be that the drugs belonged to the co-defendant alone. On the other hand, the theme of the case is the "sales pitch"; the words or phrases that explain or characterize the theory in a way that is memorable. Using the same drug case as an example, a theme might be "close enough for government work" or "one out of three might be good in baseball, but it's not enough for the law."  
  
  

Revision as of 13:00, 28 September 2010