Jury Selection Process

[Senator]

I was a jury foreman once. It was a drug case. I was asked if I was an NRA member, or had any dealings with the ATF. Since I am NRA life member, and a FFL holder, I answered yes to both. It didn't matter.

I also had a cast on my arm, and had a doctors appointment in a couple of days, it didn't matter.

It was a good experience and was worth it.

 

[Katsmeow]

From the posts it is clear that procedures vary a lot between different locales. 2 little anecdotes.

Some years ago, DH was called to be on the panel for a capital murder case. He had to fill a very lengthy written questionnaire about his views on the death penalty (he was for it) and various other things (way more than on the standard questionaire). Jurors were individually voir dired (not standard here).

At the time I worked for a law firm and, of course, that was information on his questionnaire. Basically the prosecutor was concerned because the head of the firm where I worked had a son who was a lawyer who was a noted death penalty opponent. So he wondered if DH would feel he couldn't vote for the death penalty because he might be afraid that the head of my firm would be mad at me because his son was against the death penalty. DH was just dumbfounded by the entire line of questions because he had no idea the head of my firm even had a son let alone the son's opinion on the death penalty and he could care less what they thought anyway. So, the prosecutor ended up striking him from the jury. (The irony of the whole thing was that the head of the firm I was with told me that, while his son might oppose the death penalty, he was in favor of it).

Another story. Many years ago, when I was a young lawyer, we went to trial in a civil case and the judge asked the lawyers how long we thought the case would last. Our opposing counsel said 2 days. We said something like a month. So the judge told the panel the trial would last 2 weeks.

Well, we were the closest to right although even we underestimated it a bit. I think the jury was probably not too happy to be told it would last 2 weeks and then have it take about 3 times that long, particularly since it started before Thanksgiving and ended a week or so before Christmas (that weekend I saw several jurors and lawyers involved in the case at the shopping mall getting Christmas shopping done).

 

[MichaelB]

In Connecticut state courts, the rule is one day or one trial if you are picked for the jury. There is a phone number that you call the night before to see if you must appear. If you actually go in for the day and don't get picked, you're usually free from a call for the next three years.

Once you arrive at court, you are given a jury questionnaire to complete. It asks whether you or a member of your family is in law enforcement or is a lawyer, and a few other personal questions, such as place and type of employment. These questionnaires are given to the lawyers who will conduct the voir dire. You also watch a film about the court process and your potential role in it.

In the first step, all the people called for the day are herded into the courtroom and questioned as a group by the judge. This is designed to weed out quickly people who cannot be on a jury due to a variety of common personal reasons -- have child care responsibilities, or medical care for the elderly, or their own health issues, or work that won't pay them if they are on a jury, vacation plans etc. The ones with a valid reason are excused and the remaining people are then given an oath and become the venire (the pool of potential jurors.) They then go to another room to wait for voir dire.

This is similar to the process used when I was called in NY. In our case the trial length was expected to be unusually long (2 months) and that made jury selection much more difficult. It took about a week to choose the jury and alternates, and the things people did to get out of serving were astounding.

For me the trial was eye-opening. I was deeply impressed by the Judge and the way he managed the process, kept things focused and on track, always had an amazing awareness and control of everything that was happening in the courtroom.

The other thing that made an immediate and permanent impression is the importance of choosing an effective attorney.

 

[LoneAspen]

When I lived in Colorado, I was called, and picked, twice, and found it to be one of the most boring and frustrating things I ever had to sit through. Both trials lasted about a week.

I have no patience for delays or people who use every excuse to stonewall something, and I thought the number of sidebars and objections in both cases was ridiculous. I wanted so bad to shout out "Quit stalling!" at the damn lawyers.

EDIT: And reading about some of these trials that took months...there's no way I'd sit on a jury that long. I've often wondered if you owned a home in another state, if you could claim you're "moving" there in the next couple days and therefore ineligible to serve.

 

[zinger1457]

Just read in the local newspaper where the ABA has decided it is ethical for lawyers and their consultants to search online social media sites about prospective jurors. They may already have their mind made up about you before they even start asking you questions.

 

[meierlde]

Just read in the local newspaper where the ABA has decided it is ethical for lawyers and their consultants to search online social media sites about prospective jurors. They may already have their mind made up about you before they even start asking you questions.

It would have to be a high profile case for this to happen. In Harris county they give each juror a number and fill panels by number. Since only 1/2 of those called show no one can know who will be on a jury. The Bailiff hands the lawyers the questionnaires when he escorts the jury to a courtroom.
Now for some cases where exhaustive questionnaires are used there may be a chance to review before hand, but not on usual cases with public defenders. (Once again if you can pay for a very good lawyer you can get better justice, but there is nothing new about this it was this way in the roman empire also)

 

[38Chevy454]

Been called in numerous times, but never made it past initial questioning. I think that lawyers avoid anyone that is logical or a critical thinker. When asked my profession, Being an engineer seems to get me out from jury selection, although lose a day just going to the court and showing up.

When I lived in CA I was constantly called for jury duty, I could just about set my calendar for 2 years after. It was ridiculous.

 

[Mulligan]

Just read in the local newspaper where the ABA has decided it is ethical for lawyers and their consultants to search online social media sites about prospective jurors. They may already have their mind made up about you before they even start asking you questions.

I read that too. But if they looked me up they would find nothing. But then again, I imagine that in and of itself would leave an impression nonetheless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[scrabbler1]

Been called in numerous times, but never made it past initial questioning. I think that lawyers avoid anyone that is logical or a critical thinker. When asked my profession, Being an engineer seems to get me out from jury selection, although lose a day just going to the court and showing up.

When I lived in CA I was constantly called for jury duty, I could just about set my calendar for 2 years after. It was ridiculous.

Wow, only 2 years? That's pretty slim. Here in New York, we are told 7 years and that includes jury duty of any type such as federal grand jury we can use to get excused if that had occurred within the last 7 years. I had 9-year and 11-year gaps between being called and it has been nearly 7 years since my last time (so I may get called again soon).

 

[NW-Bound]

Been called in numerous times, but never made it past initial questioning. I think that lawyers avoid anyone that is logical or a critical thinker. When asked my profession, Being an engineer seems to get me out from jury selection, although lose a day just going to the court and showing up.

That's the theory many of my friends have. But then, suddenly I was picked twice in recent years, while being passed up several times earlier. Perhaps being retired had something to do with getting picked.

 

[Katsmeow]

Been called in numerous times, but never made it past initial questioning. I think that lawyers avoid anyone that is logical or a critical thinker.

Well, it may depend upon which side of the case they represent. On most of my juries, I would have loved to have logical, critical thinkers....

 

[Gumby]

One of the reasons I much prefer bench trials.

 

[martyb]

I've only been called once for jury duty, and I ended up not only being selected, but I was the foreman! This was in 2007 or '08. Long story short, we found the guy guilty and he went to prison. I had to flex my foreman muscle a bit, though...lol.

I explained the whole thing in an earlier thread on here....it's around here someplace.

 

[rodi]

38Chevy is right - in California they call fairly frequently, unless you're selected for a trial. If you're dismissed without being empaneled you will likely be called back within 2 or 3 years. The 1 day 1 trial is a good slogan - but not technically accurate - if voir dire goes for more than 1 day - it doesn't count as a trial and you'll be called back on the shorter cycle.

My husband gets selected every time he goes - and is called about every 4 years. I have never been selected in CA... again, being an engineer seems to be the reason. My 3 day voir dire experience ended with a pool of 150 folks being questioned (they had to bring in a second group because they dismissed too many from the first group.) They let about 60 engineers go just for being engineers. (It was a criminal trademark infringement case - knockoff coach and gucci bags - and they felt engineers were too strongly tied to intellectual property = cash. Personally I felt it should have been civil because despite the supreme court, I have issues with the corporations are people concept.)

The federal courts call you for a full month - you have to call in every day for a month to see if they need you.

 

[scrabbler1]

I remember from my 1996 jury duty the woman who ran the central jury room was an interesting but compassionate character. Here is what she did for us:

In my first day of jury duty (Monday), I and a bunch of others were herded up to a courtroom for a criminal case (the drunk driving case I mentioned in the earlier post) in the late afternoon. Many jurors were questioned and some were dismissed on just the boilerplate questions or for other reasons with others from the small pool (including myself) called into the jury box to replace them. At about 4 PM the judge recessed for the day and told us we would be brought back to his courtroom the next morning.

The next morning (Tuesday) we were brought back to his courtroom but had to wait outside in the hallway. Through the door's window we saw the ADA, the defendant, and the judge having a lengthy chat before we were brought in. The judge told us they had agreed on a plea deal and thanked us for our time. We were brought back to central jury so we could be selected for another case. [They had some board games we could play in the lounge area so some of us played Monopoly for a while. One woman had to use the rest room so I sat in for a few minutes. We played a joke on her as I flipped over all of her property cards (mortgaged) and hid her cash so she would think I bankrupted her in 5 minutes. We got her really good LOL!]

Anyway, around 3 PM the woman running the central jury room made a proposal to everyone. With new jurors comng in the next day (Wednesday), she knew she did not need all of us to return. She also knew that many of us were itching to leave early before the rush hour began. She gave us a choice: if any of us wanted to leave early, we had to return the next day and would be dismissed (early) if not selected for questioning that day (Wednesday). Or, we could stay until 5 but then we would be finished with jury duty if we were not taken to a courtroom or questioned by civil case lawyers. She would try to accommodate everyone's wishes as long as she had enough people in both camps. It worked, she had a pretty even split. (I had some early evening activities so I chose to leave early and return the next day. I was getting paid full salary by my employer so being spared a day on the trains was fine with me.)

Everyone got what they wanted so we were reasonably happy.

 

[JakeBrake]

I have been called for both county and federal juries.

IMHO jurors are treated better on county juries where all officials are elected by the jury pool, rather than on federal juries where all officials are appointed for life.

 

[zinger1457]

I have never been selected in CA... again, being an engineer seems to be the reason.

That wasn't my experience as an engineer living in CA. Of the ~10 times I was called up for jury duty I was selected for 6-7 juries and was never dismissed. I'm sure there may be specific cases where one of the lawyers would prefer not having an engineer who could possibly understand the details but typically that wasn't the case in my experience. In the juries I served the one's who seemed to get dismissed the most were those with some type of connection to law enforcement.

 

[scrabbler1]

That wasn't my experience as an engineer living in CA. Of the ~10 times I was called up for jury duty I was selected for 6-7 juries and was never dismissed. I'm sure there may be specific cases where one of the lawyers would prefer not having an engineer who could possibly understand the details but typically that wasn't the case in my experience. In the juries I served the one's who seemed to get dismissed the most were those with some type of connection to law enforcement.

I remember the first time I was on jury duty in 1987 and got on a case which went to verdict (guilty). I spoke to the ADA after the case. He wanted me to review his performance (he was pretty young, as was I at 24). I happened to ask him why he cose me as a juror and what he was looking for. He told me he wanted college-educated people if possible because he wanted to get people who would not be bamboozled by the defense lawyer's smoke-screen tactics.

The defense lawyer also made sure to exclude the few females being questioned, leaving us with 6 men, all of whom except for me were at least in their 40s. The ADA and I figured out he did this because this was a shoplifting case and the defense lawyer wanted older men who were not likely to be regular shoppers and would possibly buy into the nonsense about the defendant "not realizing she was pushing a loaded shopping cart out of the store." I, being a frequent shopper, did not believe that garbage for a second and easily convinced the others it was a load of bull. I told the ADA that he was lucky to have me in the jury room.