Fact-Check: Jury Selection

Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors (the "jury pool," also known as venire) is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, the summons are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.

The prospective jurors are randomly selected to sit in the jury box. At this stage, they will be questioned in court by the judge and/or attorneys of the United States. Depending on the jurisdiction, attorneys may have an opportunity to mount a challenge for a cause argument or use one of a limited number of preemptory challenges (the right to reject a juror without stating a reason).

In some jurisdictions that have capital punishment, the jury must be death-qualified to remove those who are opposed to the death penalty. Jury selection and techniques for voir dire are taught to law students in trial advocacy courses. However, attorneys sometimes use expert assistance in systematically choosing the jury, although other uses of jury research are becoming more common. The jury selected is said to have been "empaneled."

Selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the prosecution (or the "plaintiff" in a civil case) and defense can object to a juror. In common law countries this is called voir dire. Voir dire can include both general questions asked of an entire pool of potential jurors, answered by means of show of hands, and questions asked of individual prospective jurors and calling for a verbal answer. In some jurisdictions, the attorneys for the parties may question the potential jurors; in other jurisdictions, the trial judge conducts the voir dire.

In the United States, the process of voir dire is often much more in-depth than in other countries and its practical implementation is somewhat controversial because of this. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questions raises the issue of the definition of an "impartial jury." Some people are skeptical as to whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. On the other hand, proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.

In the 1970s and 1980s in the United States, scientific jury selection (the use of expert assistance to more effectively use preemptory challenges) became more common. The practice has proven controversial because of fears that it gives lawyers the ability to "fix" the jury and enhances the distorting effect of money. However, research indicates that the effect of the practice is modest at best.

Currently, the more generic jury consulting or jury research is increasingly more common as attorneys trying high-stakes cases demand assistance through all parts of the trial process. The still more generic field of trial consulting also contains a myriad other tools and techniques not directly related to juries.

x--------x

Picture from Pexels.