If the accused planned to invoke a necessity defense, how would the attorneys question the jury pool?
Rob
Is there a lawyer in the house?
The OP does not make sense!
I believe the question is “if there was no dispute over the facts of what events occurred, just whether it constituted a crime or not”, then the trial might essentially be decided by the jury selection. In such a case, what would be the DA’s and defense councils respective strategies?
As a hypothetical, suppose in the early 1970s befor Roe vs. Wade, a doctor was on trial for performing an illegal abortion. The prosecutor would want a jury of twelve conservative men, the defense would want twelve radical feminist women. How would the voir dire battle go?
Lumpy’s hypothetical will do just fine but the case I was thinking of was a German police supervisor who ordered his officers to threaten a kidnapping suspect (who admitted to the crime and had been caught trying to pick up the ransom) with torture unless he revealed the location of the victim (unfortunately, the victim, an 11-year-old boy, was already dead). In real life, the supervisor in question has not been charged as far as I know, but if he were in an American court, how would the voir dire be handled?
Thanks,
Rob
Clearly using the Chewbacca defense.
Thanks 
(sorry, sweeteviljesus, if my post seemed insulting)
This came up once in a blue moon when I was a prosecutor. I would ask questions like:
- Do you think we should we all obey the law?
- Do you think people should be free to decide for themselves when to disobey the law?
- Can people generally be trusted to know when they have to break the law?
- When is it proper for someone to decide he doesn’t have to follow the law?
- Have you ever been put in a situation where you felt you had to break the law to protect yourself or your family?
- Do you think there are times when people think they have to break the law, but they’re mistaken?
- Can you see why someone might be mistaken as to [relevant factor in the case], and make a decision based on that mistake?
Necessity defenses are, IME, rarely successful.
A tangent: A judge I knew asked for a show of hands as to which jurors let their pets up on the couch. He’d read a study in some judiciary magazine indicating that people who did were far more likely to be pro-criminal defendant. :dubious:
What would the defense ask?
Also, would the jury pool know that a necessity defense was going to be used or would they only find out once they had been impanelled?
The defense would ask similar questions, but spun to emphasize the defendant’s moral purity and admirable commitment to making the world a better place for all by doing whatever it was that led to the indictment. What did you expect? 
No, the jury would probably not be told about a necessity defense earlier than voir dire. Some judges don’t even like to tell them whether they’re going to hear a criminal or a civil case.
Not related to voir dire, but to address your specific hypothetical, I don’t think a defendant can use a necessity defense when accused of torture in Germany. There is never a scenario where torture can be used out of necessity. This assumes that threatening actual torture is in itself, torture.
Just out of curiosity, would not the issue of whether the putatively criminal act was done out of necessity – presuming that ‘necessity’ is in fact a valid defense – be a question of law, not of fact? And if so, what are the standards as to whether it should be judged by the trial judge or by the jury?
A nitpick: You are thinking of the Daschner case. Mr. Daschner (and a police officer who had acted under his instructions) were indicted and convicted but the court bent over backwards to impose the lowest possible penalty (a large fine as a suspended sentence).
It’s a question of fact as to whether or not the defendant reasonably believed he had no other choice but to commit the crime. It goes to the jury.