Jury Selection Research

A juror who cannot provide unequivocal assurance or whose credibility about the assurance is in doubt would properly be excused for cause . A prospective juror who cannot unequivocally declare lack of bias must be excused. A venireperson is not impartial if he/she has ch aracteristics that will likely make it difficult for him/her to judge the particular case fairly and without bias. A venireperson who is not impartial may be excused by the judge on the judge’s own initiative. If the judge does not do so, either party may challenge the venireperson “for cause.” The judge rules on this challenge. If the judge grants the challenge, the venireperson is dismissed from the voir dire panel. If the judge denies the challenge, the venireperson remains on the panel. There are many bases that will support a for-cause challenge, but most involve one of three general principles, that is, that the venireperson: (1) Kno ws o ne of the pa rt ie s, t he l awye rs , the judge, or the wi tnesses. (2) Expr esses an opi ni on in t he ju ry quest ionnai re or dur ing voi r di re t hat indicates the venireperson cannot set aside some preconceived notion that will interfere with his/her ability to fairly judge the case. For example, in a death penalty jurisdiction a venireperson in a death penalty case who states that he/she would always impose a death sentence for murder would be challengeable for cause because not all murders should be punished by death under the law. Equally, a venireperson who was so opposed to the death penalty that he/she would never vote to impose it would likewise be challengeable for cause because the law says the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in some cases. (3) Has life experiences fro m which bias can be inferred. For example, a member of the Ku Klux Klan would be challengeable for cause in a case where a black defendant is seeking redress under the Civil Rights Act An opposing party does not usually contest a for-cause challenge based on the venireperson’s knowledge of someone connected with the case. But an opposing party often does contest the granting of for-cause challenges based on the venireperson’s opinions or life experiences. The opp osing party will try to “rehabilitate” the venireperson through questioning designed to demonstrate that the venireperson can fairly judge the case, despite the opinion or life experience. The point of contesting a for- cause challenge is not necessarily a belief that the venireperson will end up as a juror on the case; rather, if the judge denies the for-cause challenge, the party who lodged it will probably be forced to use one of their limited number of peremptory challenges on that venireperson.

Upload
chris-qualmann
Category

Documents
view
217
download
0

Embed Size (px):

Transcript of Jury Selection Research

8/3/2019 Jury Selection Research

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jury-selection-research 1/2

A juror who cannot provide unequivocal assurance or whose credibility about the

assurance is in doubt would properly be excused for cause.

A prospective juror who cannot unequivocally declare lack of bias must be excused.

A venireperson is not impartial if he/she has characteristics that will likely make it

difficult for him/her to judge the particular case fairly and without bias. A venireperson

who is not impartial may be excused by the judge on the judge’s own initiative. If the

judge does not do so, either party may challenge the venireperson “for cause.” The judge

rules on this challenge. If the judge grants the challenge, the venireperson is dismissed

from the voir dire panel. If the judge denies the challenge, the venireperson remains on

the panel.

There are many bases that will support a for-cause challenge, but most involve one of

three general principles, that is, that the venireperson:

(1) Knows one of the parties, the lawyers, the judge, or the witnesses.

(2) Expresses an opinion in the jury questionnaire or during voir dire that

indicates the venireperson cannot set aside some preconceived notion that will

interfere with his/her ability to fairly judge the case. For example, in a death

penalty jurisdiction a venireperson in a death penalty case who states that

he/she would always impose a death sentence for murder would be

challengeable for cause because not all murders should be punished by death

under the law. Equally, a venireperson who was so opposed to the death

penalty that he/she would never vote to impose it would likewise be

challengeable for cause because the law says the death penalty is anappropriate punishment in some cases.

(3) Has life experiences from which bias can be inferred. For example, a member

of the Ku Klux Klan would be challengeable for cause in a case where a black

defendant is seeking redress under the Civil Rights Act

An opposing party does not usually contest a for-cause challenge based on the

venireperson’s knowledge of someone connected with the case. But an opposing party

often does contest the granting of for-cause challenges based on the venireperson’s

opinions or life experiences. The opposing party will try to “rehabilitate” thevenireperson through questioning designed to demonstrate that the venireperson can

fairly judge the case, despite the opinion or life experience. The point of contesting a for-

cause challenge is not necessarily a belief that the venireperson will end up as a juror on

the case; rather, if the judge denies the for-cause challenge, the party who lodged it will

probably be forced to use one of their limited number of peremptory challenges on that

venireperson.