28th de Mayo, 2018
 |
| Mémorial Day Dinner: 5:32 PM (PST) Thé 28th of Mayo, Miss Rachel Sakhi |
 |
| Mémorial Day Dinner Monday, 28th, 2018 Mémorial Day Holiday 2018: Dinner: Beef & Bean Burrito with Macaroni Salad, Monday, May 28th, 2018. |
Class, what
factors in terms of a juror’s background may come into play when
prosecutors and defense attorneys seek to use a peremptory or for cause
challenge against them during voir dire?
"Voir
Dire" refers to the second stage of jury procedures, and is the process
by which the court and the attorneys narrow down the pool of juries to
the 12 people that will decide the case. The process for voir dire
varies from state to state, and even from judge to judge. Sometimes, if
the juror pool is too large, the judge will randomly pick some people
and excuse them from duty.
Normally, however, the judge and attorneys will interview each juror about their backgrounds and beliefs. Sometimes this happens in front of the rest of the jury pool, sometimes this happens in private. Each attorney has the chance to object to jurors. There are two types of objections: "peremptory challenges" and "challenges for cause." When an attorney challenges a juror for cause, there was most likely something in the juror's background that would prejudice them in the case. For example, it is likely that an attorney would not allow a retired police officer to sit on a jury that decides a police brutality case. In federal courts, each side has an unlimited number of challenges for cause. Attorneys do not need to give reasons for peremptory challenges, but each side only gets a limited number of these types of challenges. Of course, an attorney is not allowed to use peremptory challenges based on the race or gender of potential jurors.
Normally, however, the judge and attorneys will interview each juror about their backgrounds and beliefs. Sometimes this happens in front of the rest of the jury pool, sometimes this happens in private. Each attorney has the chance to object to jurors. There are two types of objections: "peremptory challenges" and "challenges for cause." When an attorney challenges a juror for cause, there was most likely something in the juror's background that would prejudice them in the case. For example, it is likely that an attorney would not allow a retired police officer to sit on a jury that decides a police brutality case. In federal courts, each side has an unlimited number of challenges for cause. Attorneys do not need to give reasons for peremptory challenges, but each side only gets a limited number of these types of challenges. Of course, an attorney is not allowed to use peremptory challenges based on the race or gender of potential jurors.
Jason,
excellent point about jury selections. If we are selecting a jury of
our peers, how often do defendants get a true representation of their
peers?
Professor,
I think defendants get a true representation of their peers in most trials. This is because the jury selection has to be balanced and accepted by both sides. The defendant is protected under the sixth and fourteenth amendment to have a jury of his or her peers. This means that a prosecutor cannot have all African Americans as jury just because he/she wants to convict a white defendant, vice versa. I used to think that jury of peers meant that if the defendant is a female, then it will be fair if all female is selected to serve as jury, but after doing some researching I realized that is not the case. Jury of peers mean that jury should be mixed whether male/female, African American/White etc.
I think defendants get a true representation of their peers in most trials. This is because the jury selection has to be balanced and accepted by both sides. The defendant is protected under the sixth and fourteenth amendment to have a jury of his or her peers. This means that a prosecutor cannot have all African Americans as jury just because he/she wants to convict a white defendant, vice versa. I used to think that jury of peers meant that if the defendant is a female, then it will be fair if all female is selected to serve as jury, but after doing some researching I realized that is not the case. Jury of peers mean that jury should be mixed whether male/female, African American/White etc.
Kisanna, interesting point. Your examples are interesting as well. Picking a jury is a unique skill set. Defense attorneys have an extremely tough job of picking a jury. The prosecutors, in my professional opinion, have an easier job picking jurors.
Contrary
to popular belief, defendants are not entitled to a jury containing
members of their own race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. While
courts do not have to ensure that a defendant's race, gender, or age
group is represented in the jury pool, the U.S. Supreme Court has held
that courts may not remove a potential juror based solely on his or her
race or gender. Below, you'll find an explanation of the jury selection
process and the constitutional limitations placed on it.
Jason, good points. Only a jury of your peers. So, with that wording, what would be considered a jury of your peers?
The state puts together "a jury of peers" by first randomly selecting local citizens for the jury pool. The pool is then shaped during the jury selection, or voir dire, phase of the trial. During jury selection, the judge, prosecution, and defense question each potential juror in order to determine whether there is anything in the juror's background that may prejudice his or her judgment in the case.
The prosecutors and defense attorneys may then object to the inclusion of certain jurors. Attorneys have two types of objections to potential jurors While attorneys must have a legitimate reason to exclude a juror when making a challenge for cause, they typically do not need to give reasons for peremptory challenges.
In the past, prosecutors and defense attorneys may have used peremptory challenges to exclude jurors who were either of the same or different race or background as the defendant. In a number of recent decisions, however, the Supreme Court has placed restrictions on attorneys' ability to use peremptory challenges based on a juror's race, gender, or other attributes
It like applying for a job they want to make sure the individual fit the demand that will give them the position for the role they have to play. You have to really focus on the person metal state. And where their background and point of view is.
Voir
Dire is also known as Jury Selection process. The purpose of voir dire
is to question potential jurors and remove those who are not
impartial (Meyer & Grant, 2003). It also provides attorneys with
the ability to pinpoint jurors who are either sympathetic with their
argument or who are leaning to the other side.
These attorneys can either seek to utilize a peremptory challenge (controversial removal of juror) or for cause challenge (excuse juror because the attorney believes the juror is biased for a specific reason). Both methods seek to remove a juror.
Factors that may result in an attorney utilizing either of these may be if they are biased or obtain very specific views in regards to the case. For example, one juror is a mother who recently lost her child and the defendant is being charged with a homicide in regards to a child. The juror could be racist, biased, and/or prejudiced against the person and/or nature of the case.
Steven
Works Cited:
Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning Solutions.
These attorneys can either seek to utilize a peremptory challenge (controversial removal of juror) or for cause challenge (excuse juror because the attorney believes the juror is biased for a specific reason). Both methods seek to remove a juror.
Factors that may result in an attorney utilizing either of these may be if they are biased or obtain very specific views in regards to the case. For example, one juror is a mother who recently lost her child and the defendant is being charged with a homicide in regards to a child. The juror could be racist, biased, and/or prejudiced against the person and/or nature of the case.
Steven
Works Cited:
Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Nice
post Steven - there is definitely a lot that goes into the jury process
and a lot of information that I was not aware of. A lot of times I
have heard people be very biased and wants to be on a jury to "nail"
someone, attorneys are very savvy to people and know how to read through
that. I am certain people slip through the process but over-all I feel
that attorneys do a good job at minimizing this. It is funny that very
few of the TV Drama series share the jury process on the shows. They
usually cut right to the trial I know we have discussed this in
previous classes about the real-to-life of TV and the actual day-to-day
job, but never has the jury process been discussed.
Dawn,
Now that you mention it, they really do skip over the jury process in most TV Drama shows that revolve around crimes and the justice system. There are a few movies that discuss the jury but you are right, not many discuss the jury selection process itself. The most I hear in regards to this are individuals who may try to get out of jury duty by bringing up a biased view they may have. Many individuals are honest about this. As much as individuals may try to get on a jury because of their biased view, they are trying to get out of being selected because of their views.
I doubt I would get selected for any cases that center around an individual, especially parent, harming their child or another child. As a father of three girls,I just can't do it. I would be exremely biased and I would be unable to put my feelings aside during the case. I'm sure I would be filled with anger the entire time. I would have to mention this during the questioning process and the attorneys would this. The prosecutor may want to use it but of course the defense attorney would want me out of there. I can see why this is such a HUGE and IMPORTANT process but like you said, they really do skip it.
Steven
Now that you mention it, they really do skip over the jury process in most TV Drama shows that revolve around crimes and the justice system. There are a few movies that discuss the jury but you are right, not many discuss the jury selection process itself. The most I hear in regards to this are individuals who may try to get out of jury duty by bringing up a biased view they may have. Many individuals are honest about this. As much as individuals may try to get on a jury because of their biased view, they are trying to get out of being selected because of their views.
I doubt I would get selected for any cases that center around an individual, especially parent, harming their child or another child. As a father of three girls,I just can't do it. I would be exremely biased and I would be unable to put my feelings aside during the case. I'm sure I would be filled with anger the entire time. I would have to mention this during the questioning process and the attorneys would this. The prosecutor may want to use it but of course the defense attorney would want me out of there. I can see why this is such a HUGE and IMPORTANT process but like you said, they really do skip it.
Steven
Edited by Steven Roberts-Lorenzo on May 22 at 9:18am
Dawn,
you are correct, most do not show that process. I can personally tell
you it is because it is the most boring part of the process! When I was
a detective, jury selection was awful! Jury selection can last a day
or several days and in rare cases, even weeks.
Professor,
I think the only show I have seen utilize this process was Modern Family but they were comical about it. Jay, one of the main characters was trying to get out of jury duty at first then changed his motive. I would assume that instead of dramatic that this could be considered comical in some cases. I can imagine that this part was tedious.
Steven
Steven,
good points. However, aren't all jurors supposed to be neutral and
have an unbiased mindset. If we are selecting jurors to be
sympathetic or lean one way or another, is that fair? I mean aren't all
trials supposed to be neutral, unbiased and blind?
Professor,
I feel even if we pick jurors that are unbiased sometimes during the
questioning process they may say what they need to say to just to stay
on the jury selection. I lot of the lawyers pick the jurors depending on
how they may react to the case. If the case was about a man that has
battered and killed his wife the prosecutor will try to get as many
women as they can on the committed because they'll be sympathetic. It
isn't fair but that's how the lawyers feel they need to do to have the
best chance they can to win the case.
Ramona and Professor,
I agree with Ramona. I think the keyword is SUPPOSED to. Not only are the defense attorneys and prosecutors (all representatives of the justice administration including the judges and jurors) supposed to follow a specific code of ethics but there are loopholes. I see this in every profession. Ramona gave a great example. As long as the juror (during the selection process) does not show any specific biased views and answers the questions fairly, some can be selected to help a specific side. If the prosecutor selects a few mothers who answer unbiased during the questioning process but knows the criminal being convicted hurt an adolescent, they can do so. The defense attorney would have a harder time challenging these jurors.
I think this is why the challenges are so important. It gives the other side a chance to weed out any individuals that may have been chosen that show biased views.
Steven
I agree with Ramona. I think the keyword is SUPPOSED to. Not only are the defense attorneys and prosecutors (all representatives of the justice administration including the judges and jurors) supposed to follow a specific code of ethics but there are loopholes. I see this in every profession. Ramona gave a great example. As long as the juror (during the selection process) does not show any specific biased views and answers the questions fairly, some can be selected to help a specific side. If the prosecutor selects a few mothers who answer unbiased during the questioning process but knows the criminal being convicted hurt an adolescent, they can do so. The defense attorney would have a harder time challenging these jurors.
I think this is why the challenges are so important. It gives the other side a chance to weed out any individuals that may have been chosen that show biased views.
Steven
Ramona, that is true and we can't do much about it. The screening part is our best option.
I know it has to be especially hard selecting the right jurors when it comes to celebrity trails or high profile trails. When crimes make the national news it hard to really know what juror will actually be honest about not being biases. Then you have some jurors that will try to sell information to the press.
Steven,
what are some of the reasons a prosecutor or defense attorney would
want to excuse an individual from being on the jury?
One
reason a prosecutor or defense attorney would want to excuse an
individual from the jury is if they have some knowledge of the case.
Neither one would want someone that could be biased based on the facts
that they have heard about in the news. This can be hard to do
especially in high profile cases, for example the OJ Simpson case.
When
selecting the jury, the prosecutor and defense attorney may not
discriminate against any group of people. For example, the judge will
not allow them to select only men or only women. A jury should represent
all types of people, races, and cultures. Both lawyers are allowed to
ask questions about their potential biases and may excuse jurors from
service. Each side is allowed to excuse certain potential jurors without
providing a reason by using a limited number of “peremptory
challenges.”
Shawn,
That is a good point. They need to be able to select from a pool of individuals that is not discriminatory in nature. The jury should be made up of men, women and even different types of races and cultures. That is why each side is only given a certain number of strikes that they can use when selecting a jury.
One
of the more common reasons people are excused from jury duty is because
serving on the jury presents that person with an economic difficulties.
If you are the sole person working in your family, you usually cannot
take time off work to serve on a jury. Proving that serving will harm
your family should get you dismissed. For example, some states allow a
student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming
surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill
family member to be excused from jury service. Besides the lawyers
seeing who is doing the jury services, the lawyer / attorney checks for
questionings, background, if there is any relation, and can also ask
questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might
cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense.
However, I did read some sources where it says that a lawyer cannot ask
personal questions to the jury.
Professor,
One reason could be that the individual showed biased views towards a situation or towards a group of people. For example, perhaps the individual personally knows the family of the victim or the defendant. The individual may have specific feelings towards one individual or the other and would not be able to make a decision fairly based on the evidence given.
Steven
Great
post, Steven! There is so much to do in the jury selection process. It
is true they seek the ones who are going to more be on their side of the
pool. They can also extract 10 jurors with peremptory challenges! Nice
job!
That good that they make a selected to make sure the case come out even where they a better minded in the court room where thing can be done without emotional decision and more focus on the trial.
Jury
selection happens in two parts. The first part is random selection. The
state or federal district will randomly pull names off of lists that
the state keeps in the regular course of business. These lists could
include a list of registered voters, a list of people who hold driver's
licenses, or a list of people receiving unemployment benefits.
Once your name is pulled from one of these lists, you will receive a notice in the mail informing you of the date you have to go to court. The rules can vary by state, but unless you have some pressing reason to miss the first day of jury service, you generally have to go.
Once your name is pulled from one of these lists, you will receive a notice in the mail informing you of the date you have to go to court. The rules can vary by state, but unless you have some pressing reason to miss the first day of jury service, you generally have to go.
Jury Selection and "Voir Dire"
The second part is jury selection and Voir dire. Voir dire (speak the truth) refers to the questioning of potential jurors in order to narrow down the number of people selected. The judge usually makes a brief statement explaining what kind of case is to be tried and inquiring whether there is any reason the potential jurors cannot serve. The judge or the lawyers will then ask the members of the jury questions as to whether they have any knowledge of the case or have had specific experiences that might cause them to be biased or unfair. If either lawyer believes there is information that suggests a juror is prejudiced about the case, he or she can ask the judge to dismiss that juror for cause.
Usually is a matter of luck if you receive the letter to be part of making a great decision to change someone life.
When a case is called for trial, a randomly selected panel of potential jurors (called a venire) is seated in the courtroom.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that the jury service would not cause undue hardship. Then the lawyers of each side questions the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that the jury service would not cause undue hardship. Then the lawyers of each side questions the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense.
I
think asking if the potential juror has any prior knowledge of the case
is a very important aspect of jury selection. If someone does have prior
knowledge it is most likely from some type of media outlet, and the
media is notorious for being biased in their reporting techniques. A
potential juror may have an uninformed decision about anyone involved in
the courtroom process if their knowledge was obtained from the media.
Their bias could even be about the attorneys involved and have nothing
to do with the defendant. For example, the media reports who the
prosecutor and defense attorneys are in the case, along with information
about prior cases they have worked on, the potential juror could have a
preconceived notion about them. If they hear the defense attorney
previously won a case where they defended a known criminal, the
potential juror may feel the defense attorney only defends "scumbags"
and automatically assume the defendant in this case is also guilty.
Factors in a juror's background that may come into play are their religious beliefs, past run ins with law enforcement, even down to the work history. This can all have a factor in the juror selection process.
During
jury selection, the prosecutor and defense attorney in the presence of a
judge will ask the juror a series of questions to find out if he or she
can perform jury duties. For example, the juror can be asked about a
mental condition or if they are physically capable of serving as juror.
The juror may be given scenarios to determine if they are bias. If the
prosecutor or defense attorney notice that the juror is biased, and they
will not be impartial, they can use that to raise a challenge during
voir dire and have that person remove. If a juror was raped and the
suspect was acquitted of the rape charges, it is likely that that juror
will be asked to be removed from a rape trial because the lawyers might
feel like the juror might use the opportunity to get their revenge.
Kisanna, since the Prosecutor and Defense attorney, is asking all the question, what role does the judge play?
Well,
the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney do not ask all of the
questions, however, they do ask most of the questions. The judge usually
start off by asking questions that will determine if the juror is
qualified to serve. For example, a common question the judge will ask is
if any juror has surgery schedule in the near future. After the judge
decide that each juror is qualified, the Defense Attorney and the
Prosecutor will ask the juror questions about his or her background to
find out if any bias exist. Both sides can have a juror remove from the
case by objecting. They can object based on peremptory challenges or
challenges for a cause. With peremptory challenges, the Prosecutor and
the Defense attorney do not have to provide a reason as to why they
would like to have a juror remove but these challenges are limited. On
the other hand, the challenges for a cause is unlimited but both sides
must state their reason why they would like to have the juror removed.
kisanna,
I agree with what you are saying, I think that they need to ask all these questions and figure out who is biased and who is not. Although I am sure that they try to keep a few on the bench to help them win there case. Even though we are all entitled to a unbiased jury.
Judges
are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball.
Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by
both sides. Like the ump, they call 'em as they see 'em, according to
the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field
advantage), without regard to who is "favored," without regard for what
the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees
with the law.
Jason, good point. Judges are supposed to be neutral, independent and unbiased.
Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. Many criminal cases - and almost all civil ones - are heard by a judge sitting without a jury. The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth. Then the judge applies the law to these facts to determine whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of probabilities or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty.
Sometimes
the voir dire process can take days to complete because the attorneys
need to make sure they select the right candidate for the trial. The
reaction or responses some jurors give when they are asked certain
questions during the voir dire process can tell what their decision will
be in some cases. For example, if the juror openly expresses his or her
dislike or hate for pedophiles, it is likely that that juror will
return a guilty verdict for someone accused of being a pedophile.
Here is a short video I found on YouTube, which shows an example of a voir dire. What I notice is one of the juror is asked a few open-ended questions. The jurors are also briefed on what type of case to expect, and what they have to consider when making their decision.
Voire Dire in Action (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Here is a short video I found on YouTube, which shows an example of a voir dire. What I notice is one of the juror is asked a few open-ended questions. The jurors are also briefed on what type of case to expect, and what they have to consider when making their decision.
Voire Dire in Action (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Finding
the right jurors for a specific case is a huge thing that lawyers need
to do. It must be a great burden on them if they pick bias ones and end
up losing the case because of it. In your video the lawyer kept talking
about beyond a reasonable doubt non-stop. I think them repeating
themselves over and over can also be the cause of the voir dire process
taking multiple days. I have always wanted to be a juror but have yet to
get a jury summons.
Citori, I agree with you. I think it would be very stressful to choose the right jurors for a case. I think if I were an attorney and lost a case because of the jurors I initially wanted or agreed upon, I would be pretty upset. I think over time it probably gets easier for attorneys to choose jurors though. Like Kisanna mentioned before, I'm sure attorneys start to pick up on nonverbal cues which can tell them if a potential juror may be biased. Taking the time to learn about body language would be beneficial for an attorney, because they could look for those small things that people may not realize they are doing which gives the attorney a true idea of how the juror feels. I'm like you, because I think being a juror would be fascinating, while most people feel it's a huge burden. I understand why people hate it; you have to miss work and you don't get properly compensated for it, you don't really know how long it is going to last, and some people find it quite boring. Granted, I would prefer to be a juror on a criminal case which I think would be much more fascinating. It would be kind of cool if we could volunteer for jury duty, but it is understandable why that is not an option. When dealing with jurors it is important to have an unbiased group to choose from, and the best way to ensure that is to randomly choose the people selected to report for jury duty. After the random selection of a large group, the attorneys can then decide which smaller group would be the most qualified for the case.
The
type of case plays a huge factor when determining which factors may come
into when prosecutor and defense attorneys seek to use a peremptory or
for cause challenge against them during voire dire. I think factors like
beliefs, past experience, religion and bias are factors that even see
if a person is legally suitable for a case.
I agree with you Jaleka,
I think that everything should be a factor when it comes to picking and challenging one another during a voir dire. It hard because tbey may need that type of person on there to help them win the case but at the end of the day everyone shouldn't have nothing that could interfere with the case.
During
the jury selection process, the attorneys on both sides have an
unlimited amount of for cause challenges that they can use. These are
used when an attorney feels that a juror may be biased for a certain
reason. If the case was a rape case and one of the jurors is a victim of
rape, the defense attorney may feel the juror would be biased and used a
for cause challenge to have them dismissed. These also occur when a
juror knows someone involved in the case for any reason. The situations
that a potential juror has been through in their lives will help the
attorneys determine if there is a risk of bias from them. Depending on
the type of case and the jurisdiction where the trial is held, the
attorneys may only be allowed a certain amount of peremptory challenges,
so they have to use these strategically. After the attorneys finish
using their for cause challenges they can use peremptory challenges to
remove a potential juror without providing any reason as to why.
Anything about the potential juror or their background could be taken
into consideration by the attorney when they decide to use a peremptory
challenge. The problem with this, is the attorney could use their own
bias against someone in order to have them removed from the jury pool.
It like making a tough selection if it can effect the case by some emotional and not about what really going on. To make it fair to the person being convenient to court.
Voir dire is used to determine if any juror is biased, that cannot
deal with the issues fairly, or if there is cause not to allow a juror
to serve .Challenges allow each side to dismiss jurors who
are otherwise qualified, but appear likely to favor the opposing party.
However, peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors on the
basis of race or class.
Every defense attorney or prosecutor will always have what they need in order to prove the case information, evidence, in order to provide the facts in the challenge.
Sherilyn Streicker, (2018) Jury selection in criminal cases Learning the process.
Every defense attorney or prosecutor will always have what they need in order to prove the case information, evidence, in order to provide the facts in the challenge.
Sherilyn Streicker, (2018) Jury selection in criminal cases Learning the process.
Michael,
what is the procedure for the opposing attorney to challenge the other
if they think they are excusing a juror based on race or class?
No reason is required for a lawyer to use a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror. Such challenges allow each side to dismiss jurors who are otherwise qualified, but appear likely to favor the opposing party. However, peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race or class.
The procedure used for this is the prima facie.
Voir
dire is a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or
counsel. The primary purpose of voir dire is to select a fair and
impartial jury. They want to make sure as well that being on the jury
would not cause undue hardship to the juror. This includes things such
as a student being in school, medical/health issues, or being the sole
caretaker of another. The lawyers also question the potential jurors
about their biases and their pre-existing knowledge about the case. The
lawyers ask questions that are meant to uncover experiences that might
cause potential juror to favor either the defense or the prosecution.
They
want to make sure everyone has the proper information, and not to be
mislead. The lawyers have to gather as much information in order to
present the jurors with the most knowledge. Persuading is always an
important role. A preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or counsel. In order to have the best results in any case.
Michael, are the attorneys on both sides allowed to have a potential juror list so they can do independent investigations?
There are two major sources of information regarding potential jurors: (a) information gathered prior to trial and (b) information that surfaces during the voir dire phase of a trial. Sometimes lawyers hire private investigators to collect background information on potential jurors. Private investigators may speak with individuals who know the potential jurors, either directly or indirectly. In addition, investigators often examine public records and drive by the homes of jurors looking for information with which to evaluate potential jurors. A summary of this information is given to the lawyers for use at trial.
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2016/december_2016/evaluating_potential_jurors.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
When
an attorney strives a juror, it can be for many things from their job
to their history with police. A lot of time a defense does not want a
police officer to be a juror because of their background of putting
faith into cops. If an attorney was a juror then that can be seen as a
problem too. The attorneys want a jury that will side with them or that
their point can be swayed to one side and their side. It is kind of like
that show Bull who is an attorney but relies on how he picks the jury.
Each attorney wants to win. So they will strick anyone who will threaten
that case. anything can strike you just because they want a win
scenario.
I like your thinking process. Everyone has an assigned role, that they master and know more than anyone. If they studied to be a lawyer, they will know what to do in any situation. It shouldn't be about bias actions, but what is fair to provide justice fairly.
During
jury selection there are a few different reasons why the prosecutor or
defense attorney seek to challenge them during voir dire. One example
for a juror to be challenged is if that person has opinions or beliefs
which would preclude them from following the law as determined by the
courts instructions.
I agree. A juror could cause a problem when their experiences or beliefs cloud their judgements so badly that they only see what they want to see.
Voir
Dire is the process of interviewing potential jurors to determine if
they should be 1 of the 12 jurors selected to serve on the case. When
determining jurors background several things come into play. Should
questions asked raise concern for the opposing counsel the said counsel
may object by using challenge for cause,where something in the
individuals background may raise concern. This could come from a
question such as "is there anything in your life events that are similar to what has happened in this case?"
Peremptory challenges do not need to have a reason, however counsel is
only permitted to use this challenge several times. This challenge may
not be used much longer in the system. Many court cases in the past
few decades have viewed as using this method for racial and gender
discrimination. Obviously, this cannot be permitted. Also religious
preferences cannot be used in this challenge either.
I
don't know if I didn't look deep enough but is there a limit to how many
jurors the council can strick down using challenges for cause?
Dallas,
there is no limit to the number of challenges for cause that attorneys
can use. As long as the attorney has a legitimate reason to believe the
juror would be biased in some way during the trial, they can use for
cause challenges as much as they would like. They can only use their for
cause challenges The peremptory challenges are the only ones that have
a limited amount that can be used by each attorney. There is no set
number stated in our text though, because the number of peremptory
challenges allowed per attorney varies between jurisdictions and
difficulty of the case. It is unconstitutional to use peremptory
challenges based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation, but the
problem with that is the fact that an attorney doesn't actually have to
give any reason for using those challenges. If there is a trend in the
type of juror the attorney is using their challenges on (all the same
race, gender, etc...) the court is allowed to ask the attorney for a
reason for the challenges that are not discriminatory.
In
voir dire, the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors
questions to determine if they are competent and suitable to serve in
the case. Errors during jury selection are common grounds for appeal in
criminal cases.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.
Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.
The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.
Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.
Hi Shawn,
I came across an article that described in detail the nonverbal behaviors attorneys pay attention to when observing and selecting prospective jurors. According to (Wilhoit, W. H., 2005, February), attorneys will observe the ways jurors interact with one another, who they sit by, if they're friends with other prospective jurors, and even the books they may be reading. From the nonverbal behaviors attorneys are able to get an idea if the prospective juror could be beneficial to their case.
Wilhoit, W. H. (2005, February). The voir dire process. Retreived from https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/voirdireprocess.html
The
factors that could be used in a case to dismiss you from jury duty is if
you or someone you know have been subjected to the acts of the case.
For example, if you as a teen was raped and the case was about a rape
you would most likely be dismissed because you would not be able to stay
neutral as the facts are presented. You would most likely automatically
want to convict the suspect with out any evidence that was submitted.
I
agree. Attorney's evaluate each juror prospect by asking questions to
make their best selections for their side and ensure there are no
biases. As you mentioned above is also called implied biases. Other
biases may even include you have a position already on the case because
of an event you observed even though you have no personal connection to
that person.
unfortunately, I have no prior experience pertaining to a jury, so I this only my opinion on the matter. which is that I agree with what Meghan and Tyler are saying, however, I believe that they also evaluate other things as well such as culture religion and personal beliefs. because I believe that it is important that the people that are selected for a jury to take it seriously.Edited by Miguel Mejia on May 26 at 6:23pm
This is an example of a Jury Selection.....
Jury Selection: An Inside Look At The Process (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Jury Selection: An Inside Look At The Process (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Hi Gissell,
Thank you for sharing this video it demonstrates how rigorous the process of voir dire is. I found it interesting that the "jury whisperer" uses real-time technology to study the responses these prospective jurors have during the mock trials. This allows the "jury whisperer" and those who use similar devices to get an idea of how these potential jurors might react during the actual trial.
Thank you for sharing this video it demonstrates how rigorous the process of voir dire is. I found it interesting that the "jury whisperer" uses real-time technology to study the responses these prospective jurors have during the mock trials. This allows the "jury whisperer" and those who use similar devices to get an idea of how these potential jurors might react during the actual trial.
Factors
are financial standing, family, race, religion, job, and political
beliefs. Ideally when selecting a jury you want the jury to be
completely unbiased. Although that usually doesn't happen due to moral
belifes, religious beliefs, or other factors such as how different the
defendant is to the jury. If the defendant had charges against him for
murdering a child, and juror with kids would probably be excused due to
their emotional state. If someone committed a hate crime against a
certain religious group or race then most people in the religious group
or race would be excused. Anything that could make a juror partial to
one outcome regardless of the facts and evidence of the case is looked
at and questioned.
During
voir dire prospective jurors are either questioned by the judge or
attorneys, or given surveys or questionnaires to fill out. An attorney
may attempt to utilize a peremptory challenge to strike a prosepective
juror if they feel the juror does not benefit their case. Factors that
may affect an attorney's decision to strike a potential juror or
challenge for cause include any biases the prospective juror may have,
their attitude towards the topic related to the case (i.e. domestic
violence), and any relation he or she may have to the defendant or the
attorneys. Controversial as it may be, some attorneys also base their
decision on the prospective juror's age, gender, ethnicity, and
education.
Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
I,
myself have never had to serve on a jury. There are many things that
both sides take into consideration when there are trying to select a
jury. A juror's criminal history is one; no one with a criminal felony
is able to serve on a jury. A big thing that both the prosecutors and
defense attorneys take into consideration, is a person's biases. I know
many people that have been called to serve jury duty and if they do not
want to, they will use the excuse that they have a specific bias;
usually a racial one. Jury selection can be a very long process but it
is for the best.
Good Evening Melissa,
I too have not served in a jury, so I do not have personal experience with the jury selection process, but I agree that many factors play into the role of selecting a jury. Many who are selected will do the best they can to get out of jury duty, but I can see a benefit coming from serving. People will use excuses, such as racism, love for guns, certain political choice, and so on.
I too have not served in a jury, so I do not have personal experience with the jury selection process, but I agree that many factors play into the role of selecting a jury. Many who are selected will do the best they can to get out of jury duty, but I can see a benefit coming from serving. People will use excuses, such as racism, love for guns, certain political choice, and so on.
My cousin recently served on a jury case and she told me that it was a 3 day process just for the prosecutor and the defense attorney to both agree on the 12 jurors and the two substitutes. The vetting process consist of questions that have nothing to do with the case, questions about the potential jurors likes and dislikes, this is for both sides to get a feel of your personality with ask a person directly. I can understand the process, they want to make aure that the jury is fair.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys want to find the best jurors to support their own argument.
Jurors are interviewed to ensure they are capable of physically being a juror and doesn't have anything that impedes their ability to perform their duty. Jurors also have to be impartial and not having any biases associated with the case. If any of those are present the attorneys can challenge them and have them dismissed. After the juror selection is reduced to satisfaction the attorneys take part in whats called striking the jury. It can take part in front of a judge or be written down in which both sides make cases for the jurors they want and don't want.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html
Jurors are interviewed to ensure they are capable of physically being a juror and doesn't have anything that impedes their ability to perform their duty. Jurors also have to be impartial and not having any biases associated with the case. If any of those are present the attorneys can challenge them and have them dismissed. After the juror selection is reduced to satisfaction the attorneys take part in whats called striking the jury. It can take part in front of a judge or be written down in which both sides make cases for the jurors they want and don't want.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html
Well
from what I understand when a case is called for trial, a randomly
selected panel of potential jurors (called a venire) is seated in the
courtroom. In order for a jury to be selected, they go through a
process; this process is to ensure that the jury is made up of impartial
people who can make a dissection based on the information rather than
their own feeling.
Good Afternoon Miguel,
I agree with your statement, as the jury is selected by the judge, and attorneys, and weed out the people whom may present a problem through the trails.
Voir
Dire is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury
trials. Normally, the judge and attorneys will interview each juror
about their backgrounds and beliefs. The two types of objections,
peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
Jury
selection is a strategic prosses to figure out peoples background and
just trying tp figure out who is suitable for a case. The real question
is how would you even know if a person is suitable for a case. People
that are potential jurors are given about 10 to 20 questions about their
background, religion, past experience and other questions that try to
sum up your character. Even if someone is bias and was selected for jury
and reveals their bias during trial there is a way to remove them from
jury. A lawyer will have to prove someone in the jury they are trying to
get rid of that can potentially be harmful to the trial is
discrimination in jury selection. Usually in these cases its sometimes
bad racial past experiences the juror has and becomes inadequate for
jury.
What
if a juror lies during the juror selection? I haven't really thought of
that before. I think it is a good thing that an attorney can remove a
bad juror out of the trial. Who decides that these are good questions to
ask the jurors and who decides what the right answer is?
Citori,
I think some jurors lie just to be apart of the trail. I agree that
getting jurors that are harmful to the trail be removed. Having a bad
juror can cause the case to have a hung juror. Or letting someone
guilty get acquitted or put and innocent person sent to prison.
Citori and Ramona ,
I agree that some jurors probably do lie to be apart of the jury. But I feel all lies unravel eventually. Once sensed bias, ill intent, racial discrimination or hatred, there will be a force to get you out of the jury. I honestly don't know who decides these are good questions, but I do know that these questions are good enough to try and figure people out that are suitable for the case. The people that select jury are lawyers and judges and if they feel someone isn't suitable based on the questions , they can move on the next potential juror that might be suitable for a case. I think the questions are good to sort out a person and their character. I cant really think of another way to do it. But the questions are based on belief, religion, age, race, and experience. I don't see how this cant help selection.
Getting
someone kicked off the jury is drawn out process and will only extend
the length of the case. Luckily with only one bias you can most likely
ignore them and still come to a decision unless they are persuading the
jury with force.
While the process is long it's a much needed process. Trying to get a jury which is completely unbiased is a hard process, but in order for the Justice system to fully work it is whas needed.
Jaleka,
This process is so long and drawn out. You are right, how do they know they are picking the right person. The only thing they are not allowed to remove someone for is race. So any other reason they may want to remove them whether it’s for cause or peremptory, they can do it. Nice post.
This process is so long and drawn out. You are right, how do they know they are picking the right person. The only thing they are not allowed to remove someone for is race. So any other reason they may want to remove them whether it’s for cause or peremptory, they can do it. Nice post.
Jaleka,
the prosecution and the defense attorney will never know what they are
actually getting, but this is why they ask so many questions. They ask
questions and the make their determinations on the answers that the
person provides. My cousin said she was asked the most random questions
like, if she watched law and order, the first 48 hours and other shows
of the sort. I think the reason that they asked a question like that
was, because they do not want people's minds being corrupted by cop
shows. My cousin was also asked what she does for fun, which was another
random question, that you would not believe would tell a lot about a
person.
I agree, if the jurors are not eligible for the court it become more of a fair trail in getting rid of any discrimination, making sure the case does not affect or relates of their background.
Peremptory
For a peremptory challenge, attorneys can basically exclude you for no reason at all except for when dealing with race. So say they do not like blue eyed people, without saying that's the reason they can exempt you from the jury selection.Other factors could be your thoughts about the type of crimes committed, religion, age, or your background.
For Cause
For cause is when you have an actual reason of being excluded. Such as: things you've already previously heard through the media about the case, no childcare for your children, illness, or even having a flight that cannot be cancelled. Also, if they feel you are biased in the case or have a clear reason to not be able to judge the case impartially or neutrally, they can exclude you.
For a peremptory challenge, attorneys can basically exclude you for no reason at all except for when dealing with race. So say they do not like blue eyed people, without saying that's the reason they can exempt you from the jury selection.Other factors could be your thoughts about the type of crimes committed, religion, age, or your background.
For Cause
For cause is when you have an actual reason of being excluded. Such as: things you've already previously heard through the media about the case, no childcare for your children, illness, or even having a flight that cannot be cancelled. Also, if they feel you are biased in the case or have a clear reason to not be able to judge the case impartially or neutrally, they can exclude you.
Copied the text from the website below for peremptory challenges. The more serious the crime the more challenges are given to both sides. It allows both sides more chances to dismiss potential jurors that they believe will not be good for the case.https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_24Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors specified below. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly.(1) Capital Case. Each side has 20 peremptory challenges when the government seeks the death penalty.(2) Other Felony Case. The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.(3) Misdemeanor Case. Each side has 3 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment of one year or less, or both.
Then
defense attorny can challenge the judge if he or she thinks is not a
perfect fit for the trail in which then judge could have a hard
judgement in which a certain aspect of the defendant.
The
attorney job is to make sure that the defendant rights are protected
and the attorney would have to check the judge background to see if his
or her believes and background does not affect the trail of any
discrimination because of the judge believes.
Wrap-up
Class, another great discussion this week. As we learned the jury selection is designed to give the offender a fair trial. The selection process removed the possibility of selecting a juror that would be biased is their decision making. It is these procedures that make our criminal justice system unique. Keep up the good work.
Class, another great discussion this week. As we learned the jury selection is designed to give the offender a fair trial. The selection process removed the possibility of selecting a juror that would be biased is their decision making. It is these procedures that make our criminal justice system unique. Keep up the good work.
The state puts together "a jury of peers" by first randomly selecting local citizens for the jury pool. The pool is then shaped during the jury selection (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., or voir dire, phase of the trial. During jury selection, the judge, prosecution, and defense question each potential juror in order to determine whether there is anything in the juror's background that may prejudice his or her judgment in the case.
The prosecutors and defense attorneys may then object to the inclusion of certain jurors. Attorneys have two types of objections to potential jurors: challenges for cause and peremptory challenges (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. While attorneys must have a legitimate reason to exclude a juror when making a challenge for cause, they typically do not need to give reasons for peremptory challenges.
In the past, prosecutors and defense attorneys may have used peremptory challenges to exclude jurors who were either of the same or different race or background as the defendant. In a number of recent decisions, however, the Supreme Court has placed restrictions on attorneys' ability to use peremptory challenges based on a juror's race, gender, or other attributes.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Jury
selection if you receive a letter and you must attendant because it is
the law. You be giving a part of jury selection. Where the Voir Dire is
selection where the judge talk about the case and the lawyer try to
figure out which of the juror doesn't want to part take of the event.
Just because a juror doesn't want to be on the jury is not grounds for dismissal. Jury duty is required by law if you are selected. Some ways however are to claim financial hardship, student status, or claim a medical problem that would not allow you to attend trial. Although with these you will have to provide the court with any information or documents that is required. You could also try to get the prosecutor and defense attorney to request dismissal by being biased, or knowing too little or too much for example acting like you don't know anything about the law or acting like you know more than the judge.
It is important that an attorney protects the defendants rights and to make sure it is a fair trail in which he or she must investigate and speak with the juror about themselves and the ideals to make sure the judgement is not based on discrimination for the defendant. In which is referred as vior dire in challenges against.
Good night everyone, this is Rachel and I wish you all a wonderful
finish to your Week 4's assignment tasks, learning agenda, and
gainful recourse. Nice participating.
Sincerely,
Rachel Lynne Os. Sakhi
finish to your Week 4's assignment tasks, learning agenda, and
gainful recourse. Nice participating.
Sincerely,
Rachel Lynne Os. Sakhi