The art and science of conducting the voir dire.

Abstract

Psychologists have been receiving requests from attorneys to advise and assist them in the voir dire, or the preliminary examination to determine the competency of prospective jurors (sometimes inaccurately referred to as jury selection). Curiously, there has not been presented in the literature heretofore a review of the various voir dire techniques that have been recommended and used over the years. This article describes the process of voir dire and reviews and critiques these techniques. It is concluded that adequate empirical data do not exist to establish the efficacy of the techniques presented and, thus, the process of voir dire remains more of an art than a science.Although no data have been gathered to substantiate the point, it appears that psychologists and other social scientists are increasingly being asked by attorneys to aid them in conducting the voir dire. Curiously, there has not been a review, let alone a critical one, of the voir dire techniques that have been suggested and used by lawyers and/or social scientists over the years. The purpose of this article is to fill the void.Voir Dire DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTIONThe sixth amendment guarantees to each criminal defendant the right to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community. * In the federal system, the seventh amendment extends the right to a jury trial to suits at common law (i.e., any suits that are not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction). 2 The states are not required by the federal Constitution to grant the right to a jury trial in civil suits based solely on state law, but all states make provisions for such a right in theifr own constitutions. 1 The right was made applicable to defendants in state courts by the decision in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), on the theory that such a right was necessary to secure the individual's right to due process of law as guaranteed under the 14th amendment. 2

Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives' Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior, and Board Appointments

“…Thus politicians must be adept at overcoming voters' intrinsic suspicion and distrust of their motives. Attorneys should therefore ingratiate themselves with jurors in such a way that jurors do not see their ingratiatory ploy as obvious impression management (Suggs and Sales, 1978). As discussed above, making common group affi liations salient and engaging in value conformity tends to increase presumptive trust between individuals and reduce suspicion about the motives underlying their behavior by triggering in-group bias, and practical guides give lawyers similar advice (Crawford and Morris, 2005).…”

Rape trials and jurors' decisions: A psycholegal analysis of the effects of victim, defendant, and case characteristics.

“…It should be pointed out, however, that the use of scientific jury selection is not a guarantee for controlling juror biases. Suggs and Sales (1978), for instance, have noted that no systematic evaluation studies have been made to assess the effectiveness of the various techniques social scientists have used to aid in jury selection.…”

Some steps between attitudes and verdicts

“…For the most part research has not found simple individual differences in juror decisions (Saks, 1976;Saks & Hastie, 1978;Suggs & Sales, 1978). However, a more sophisticated "interactionist" perspective now guides most research and the usual expectation is that there will be "case X individual interactions" so that one individual may exhibit a tendency to convict in certain types of (similar) cases, but not all cases.…”