Felony Voir Dire
Johnson and Haney describe a study related to the voir dire process.
The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.
During the voir dire process, the way jurors are removed is part logic and part legal strategy. The judge determines that a potential juror is not likely to be fair to both sides in the case, than the juror will be
The right to be heard by a jury is when the defendant is given the opportunity to have a trial before their peers, friends and neighbors. This is when they can introduce information that will support their claims. While at the same time, prosecutors will bring forward all relevant facts to demonstrate the guilt of the suspect. This is illustrating how the accused has the right to have their case heard by an impartial third party (i.e. the jury). (Sundahl, 2011)
The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.
Voir dire- A process in which jurors are questioned in order to select the members of the final panel. Another definition given by Garland is “roughly it means “to speak the truth.”
For those who do make it to trial a crucial step to having a fair trial is to have an unbiased jury, before the trial begins the prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney interview members of the jury pool in a process called voir dire. During voir dire the attorneys are given an unlimited amount of challenges for cause, which helps eliminate people who show a bias for one side or the other, for example the defendant’s sibling would not be allowed to serve on the jury because they are too closely related and would have a
This process not only ensures due process, but it also provides the best means of ensuring an impartial jury. The process provides lawyers the opportunity to review possible jurors and gives them the opportunity to have a say in the selection process. Any jurors that the lawyers feel can be detrimental to the case, can be removed from the jury selection process.
This amendment was introduced after the Bruce Burrell case (2005) where, after two weeks of deliberations, all jurors were firmly in favor of one verdict except for one who was firmly against the majority verdict. The case illustrated the vulnerabilities of the previous jury system in creating a time and cost ineffective measure of trialing defendants where justice was not necessarily achieved. Another recent reform is the passing of legislation in 2006 which provided three additional ‘spare’ jurors to be empanelled on lengthy criminal trials for example in the case R v. Wood. These recent reforms in legislation have led to the jury system being more cost and time effective in the criminal trial. Allowing a majority vote instead of strict unanimous verdict reduces the risk of a hung jury and hence prevents jury bribing and jury disagreements. By avoiding a retrial, the criminal trial process saves huge amounts of time and money for all individuals involved and hence maintains the integrity of the jury system. Equally, allowing spare jurors in lengthy trials is hugely cost and time effective as retrials are often avoided in the case where there is misconduct amongst the jurors.
Often, forty or fifty people will be summoned for a 12 person jury. The process of selecting who will make up the jury is called voir dire, which involves getting rid of potential jurors who would not be fair or impartial. Prosecutors and defense attorneys can strike for cause a potential juror for several reasons, such as bias or prejudice, an unlimited number of times. They also have a limited number of peremptory challenges, which allows them to get rid of a juror without needing to have a valid reason to do so. Once all challenges the attorneys can utilize have been exhausted, the judge will assemble the petit jury and will generally select alternate jurors as
If during all of this process no agreement or deal has been made it goes to trial. “A trail is the proceeding during which the government and the defense present evidence to prove or disprove the charges” (Victim Assistance, 2013). If the defendant chooses to have a trial by jury than the jury selection process begins. “Twelve jurors are selected randomly from the jury pool, a list of potential jurors compiled from voter registration records of people living in the district” (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). An ideal jury should consist of all types of people from different races and cultures (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). Each attorney asks each potential jury member questions about their prejudices to help them decide whether or not they want them on the jury (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). The judge is there to make sure that the attorneys are fair with their questions, and that the jury selection ends up fair and impartial.
Voir dire- Is the process of selecting jurors before the beginning of a criminal trial. This when potential jurors is question by the defense and prosecutor to find out about their background and any bias (Gabbidon & Greene, 2013)
Not because of fact but because of past experiences and other issues. That is why today in our legal system the jurors are now questioned to ensure they aren’t racist or hold a personal bias against anyone. During certain points in the arguments of the jurors it is obvious through what they say that peer pressure plays a small part in deciding whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. When the first vote was cast and only one juror voted not guilty he was under intense and hostile scrutiny. The entire group cannot see why he voted not guilty and they simply say, “tell us what you’re thinking and we’ll tell you where you’re all mixed up.” The way I see it they are implying that the defendant is definitely guilty and the juror who voted not guilty is just simply confused. Some of the jurors even vote guilty because they don’t want to be the one who keeps the other jurors from being able to leave. The system of voir dire has its advantages and disadvantages. Some lawyers use it to their advantage and hire jury consultants, who try and come up with the best jury for their case, they look for things such as race, gender, and past experiences to help them determine the person’s biases. That is the lawyer’s advantage and our disadvantage. That is exactly the opposite of what a jury is supposed to be made up of. However sometimes voir dire helps to rid the jury of the racist people and helps to make it a fair trial. I believe the best way to achieve
The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and
Fundamental to the American adjudicatory process is a jury trial. A jury has been described as a convention of a sworn body of people with the aim
The jury system in the United States of America plays an important role in our society. The jury system that we have seeks to benefit the public, it also seeks to give anyone accused of a crime the right to be judged by a group of their peers. To many Americans, the right to a trial by jury is seen as a glimmer of freedom and one which all citizens should continue to enjoy. This is backed by our Constitution and by each State’s Constitution and their Amendments, which “guarantees them the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.”(Jones, n.d.) . Consistently though, the jury system falls under attacks from critics who do not agree that this is the best option and seek to abolish, or at least limit that right.
Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf
Also prior to the trial, a jury of 6 to 12 people must be selected. Each jury member must go through a screening process to ensure that they have no connection to the trial, or any preconceived opinion of it that could keep them from being impartial to either side. A juror can be removed if they have any connection to the trial, and the defense