I recall watching “Runaway Jury” and being utterly perplexed by it. The procedure of jury selection is pretty much totally unknown in the UK.
The prosecution and defence simply can’t enter into any of the questioning mentioned in this thread.
There is a process by which the prospective jurors make any personal connections to trial known to the court but that is normally as far as it goes. No cross-examination and the jurors are selected totally at random and know nothing about which case they are being selected for.
I believe in cases of jury trails on matters of national security there may be some greater degree of vetting but that is pretty rare.
I’m not sure that there is a “better” process here. would I rather take my chances with a purely random selection or one that has been subjected to the selection criteria of one side or the other?
Another peripheral anecdote on being excused:
The plaintiff spoke only Spanish, and would be testifying through a translator. I speak Spanish, so…out.
Which is interesting in a number of ways.
How do you know that that’s why you were booted? In my experience, they don’t tell you.
In some cases (Medical Malpractice) a party is required to present the testimony of an expert to establish their case. In other cases, it is helpful for the jury to hear expert testimony, even if they take it with a grain a salt. In many cases when we talk to the jurors afterwards, they say they discounted the testimony of both sides’ experts, but when you listen to how they decided, they did adopt the reasoning of one side or the other.
And, on another point, I always want smart jurors in my trials. That’s because I always think my side is right, and I want jurors smart enough to see through the other side’s attempts to confuse the issues.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this inquiry, Elbows. Been on the go.
The Canadian practice sounds similar to what the other Commonwealth posters have said. We don’t do extensive pre-trial screening of jurors.
-
When you get your jury notice, the office which sends it out has some discretion to exclude you, if you contact them. Things like not eligible to serve, out of town that day, work reasons, and so on.
-
That discretion is limited to eligibility and availability type issues. Court officials can’t exclude you because of concerns about whether you can be impartial in the case. That type of issue can only be decided by the judge.
-
We don’t use the term “voir dire” for jury selection. It has a different meaning in our system. We just call it jury selection.
-
The jury forms are much less detailed than in the US. My recollection is that it’s just basic biographical data.
-
If the Crown tries to gather more detailed information on the potential jurors than is available on the jury forms (eg by asking the police to conduct investigations of potential jurors), that is misconduct and can result in a mistrial. It can also result in the Crown prosecutor ceasing to be a Crown prosecutor, and potentially even charged with obstruction of justice.
-
The judge at the beginning of the jury selection process normally explains to the entire jury array about the juror’s duty to be impartial (“indifferent as between Her Majesty and the accused”). The judge will often ask the entire array if they know of any reason why they cannot be impartial. (At a trial Mrs Piper was running several years ago, one of the jurors put up her hand at that point and said “Well, the Crown prosecutor is married to my cousin.” Mrs P hadn’t noticed my cousin in the large initial group.)
-
If a potential juror has a reason why they think they should not serve, they have to say so in open court. We don’t do sidebars or meetings in judge’s chambers, for two reasons. Jury selection is part of the trial, and therefore the accused has the right to hear everything that is said. As well, there is the open court principle: members of the public have the right to attend court and hear everything, subject to certain exceptions.
-
Either side can do a limited number of challenges for cause during the jury selection, but must satisfy the judge in each case that a particular person is not impartial.
-
Each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges, where they can disqualify a juror without giving a reason.
-
Once the trial is over, jurors are barred from discussing their deliberations and cannot be interviewed by the press or counsel as to why they reached their decision.
Good luck Elbows! One of my aunts served on a jury and said it was one of the most interesting but demanding things she ever did.
Two Supreme Court of Canada cases you may find of interest:
Open court principle for jury selection: R. v. Barrow:
Crown not to gather more info than on the jury forms: R. v. Latimer (yes, that Latimer case):
I just got done with two days of not being selected to serve on a jury. There weren’t many probing questions of the jurors selected but I was surprised at how much the judge let the prosecutor and defense attorney state their case as a preface to their rather mild questions.
Does it matter that my next door neighbour, (we are friendly, but not really ‘friends’, as in we don’t socialize together!), is a crown prosecutor?
What if I’m in the pool and then get called for one of his cases?
( no worries on the delay, and thanks for coming back and answering my question! This thread was making me wonder about what will happen. Your info has helped, so thanks a ton!)
They actually did, right then and there.
Sort of makes sense. they don’t want some guy whose Spanish may or may not be up to snuff (or doesn’t speak the right dialect) to either mislead jurors as to what was said, or imply that their translator is trying to mislead the jurors. It’s a variation on that “expert witness” thing.
Yes, if a witness’s testimony is translated, then it’s the translation that is the evidence before the court. The judge and jury have to be working off the same evidence, not some going by the official translation and some going by their own version of what the witness said.
Elbows, I would suggest that when the judge asks the general questions of the entire jury panel (assuming that’s how it’s done in your city; there can be local variations) you should put up your hand and say what you just posted. Let the judge and counsel then deal with it.
You are confusing technical expertise with intelligence. At least, I assume you aren’t meaning to suggest that you are more intelligent than other people because you know more about GPS than the average person?
As Aspenglow has said, it’s not about you. It’s about getting an impartial jury. One way to do that is to exclude people who have personal knowledge about the issues in the case, so they approach it with an entirely open mind (note: open mind, not vacant mind 
).
To put it another way, they don’t want someone on the jury who already has strong opinions about the points in issue.
Suppose you were on the jury, and the evidence from both the plaintiff and the defendant said that GPS has quality X. Well, for the purposes of that trial, GPS has quality X.
Now what if you’re on the jury and you think that GPS has quality Y, not quality X?
Can you put your personal opinion aside and for the purposes of deciding the case agree that GPS has quality X? Or in the jury room would you tell the other jurors that both the experts were full of it and GPS has quality Y?
If you do that, you would be contributing to a miscarriage of justice. The parties and the public are entitled to have the case decided on the evidence called in court, subject to cross-examination and the judge’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence. Cases should not be decided based on the personal knowledge of a juror, knowledge which is not known to the parties and which has not been ruled admissible by the judge.
Again, technical knowledge is not the same as intelligence. There are lots of smart people out there who don’t know anything about GPS, but would be good jurors.
Like Procrustus, Mrs Piper always wanted smart people on her juries. She wanted jurors who could listen to all the evidence, keep an open mind until all the evidence was in, and then decide the case based on that evidence. She wanted witnesses who could draw reasonable, intelligent inferences from the evidence.
Technical knowledge =! intelligence.
And Mrs Piper agrees with Procrustus - she wanted smart jurors who can see through BS.
In Santa Clara county, the juries were heavily loaded with Computer engineers, so no problems with smart or expert… well… “expert” anyway.
I asked (naively, perhaps) if a written copy of the translation would be available in the jury room, as I believe, honestly, I would/could ignore any differences or infelicities I may have noticed, and work along the lines of my training as responsible scholar.
No transcript. No cigar.
Although I think transcripts should always be available.
Transcripts cost money. It’s a question of what’s in the budget.
As Northern Piper points out, transcripts cost money. Lots of money! So no, daily transcripts are not usually available. In California (where I clerked), dailies are required in death penalty cases, but that’s the only exception about which I’m aware.
However, if the jury is confused about a particular point in their trial, they can collectively ask the judge if the court reporter can read back that part of the testimony and/or proceedings. I recall cases where court reporters went and read back for several hours. Usually, though, it was just a particular point and they could do the read-back in a few minutes.
Always take good notes if you end up on a jury. 
Of course, if you’re in Canada, one twist on the interpretation issue is that criminal trials can be in either English or French, depending on the language of the accused, so you may need jurors who are bilingual.
Id thought I heard/read you could NOT take notes as a juror.