Jury selection in criminal cases

Factual Questions
1

I was empaneled (I think that’s the right word) for a criminal case today, but the jury selection isn’t complete. When my panel headed for the courtroom after 3pm, the judge told us (among other things) that some jurors had already been selected, and that our group had been called to provide the balance.

My panel had something like 60 people on it. After hearing a few details of the case plus the witness list, more than half the panel was excused for some reason relating to their inability to be impartial. We ended the day with 20 people remaining, and we’d answered a few questions about our jobs (and those of spouses/adult children), whether people had served on a jury previously and on what sort of case, and lastly, what neighborhood we lived in. I guess we continue the winnowing process tomorrow, but I’m not sure what more questions could be asked.

Anyway, if the first panel also had 60 people on it, that would mean that 120 potential jurors were screened to seat a single jury (12 + 4 alternates). Is that typical?

Also, what sort of factors do prosecutors and defense attorneys look for in jurors they want to keep vs. get rid of? I realize this probably varies according to the crime and defendant, but for the sake of argument let’s assume a blue-collar male of a specific ethnic background being accused of a violent crime. Which side would favor jurors that could more closely identify with the defendant?

2

No, at least in my experience. I would guess that there’s something unusual about this case that makes it hard to find impartial jurors. Is it a high-profile case that’s gotten a lot of media attention? That sometimes creates a problem, in that many potential jurors have heard about the case (possibly including inadmissible information) and already have an opinion.

3

For some types of cases, yes (and this sounds like it since it’s a homicide). For other types of cases, no.

On one case I worked on (as a civil attorney, not criminal), we went through something like 300 or 350 potential jurors to seat a panel of 12 jurors plus 6 alternates. I’ve seen other cases, however, where a panel of 30 potential jurors will get you the 12 jurors you need. The number of veniremen to be called is a combination of factors, including the length of the trial, the notoriety of the parties, and the charges or claims at issue.

That really depends on the case. Typically, they’ll try to identify the jurors bad for them (you don’t want to identify the jurors who are good for your side because that merely helps the other side know who to strike), and will look for certain attitudes or try to elicit answers demonstrating that the juror should be stricken for cause.

Leaving aside the constitutional issues (i.e., dismissing a juror based on ethnicity or appealing to a juror based on ethnicity are forbidden), it really will depend. The prosecution may believe, for example, that jurors who identify with the defendant will be tougher on the defendant, because they will disapprove of his actions, while the defense could believe that jurors who identify with the defendant will go easier on him out of a fellow-feeling. Each side may have engaged a jury consultant, who could issue a report to help the lawyers identify “good” jurors, or who may even come to court during voir dire to observe the potential jurors and to consult with the lawyers about their choices.

This is a very interesting area of the law, and there’s a ton more that could be said. Hopefully, it will be.

4

I was “in the pool” for a violent crime case, and one of the questions they asked just about every potential juror (in the box) was whether they, or someone close to them, had been involved in a violent crime. So that will likely be a factor in your case as well.

In general, I’ve been told that (as an engineer) I usually have a good chance of being excused. I have been told that if either the prosecution or defense feels they have a weak case, they will attempt to remove the analytical types. If either feels they have a weak case, they will need to rely more on evoking emotions. Whereas us analytical types rely more on the facts.

The only consistent get-out-of-jury-duty “card” I’ve seen is if you’ve ever studied law. This has been a consistent “excuser” in every jury pool I’ve been on.

5

TJVM, I suppose I could have missed it in the news, but as far as I can tell this wasn’t a well-publicized case. I think it might have more to do with the nature of the alleged crime. (Not a murder, actually… since I haven’t said where I am, I suppose I’m not giving away too much by saying that the charge is rape).

Very interesting, I agree.

If either side brought on a jury consultant, they weren’t in the court. We were introduced to the two ADAs, the defendant and the defense attorney. I thought it noteworthy that the defendant’s attorney happened to be pregnant - maybe a fortuitous circumstance that also lends an air of innocence to the defendant?

This is the basis on which over half the panel members were excused in the first place. A handful tried to get excused, but were sent back to sit with the rest of the remaining panel (and from the conversation on the back bench, I think they just wanted out of having to serve). As an attorney for either side, I’m not sure I’d want someone so unwilling to serve be on the jury, anyway!

After the judge went through the occupations of the remaining panelists, it was clear I stuck out w/r/t the technical nature of my job. The only question I got asked further about that was whether I had any expertise in DNA analysis.

I suppose I’ll find out today whether I’m considered a boon or a bane to either side.

6

I was on a panel for a first degree murder case, but wasn’t chosen because I am a former U.S. Army MP. Defense did not like that.

7

I had a professor once tell me, “Never take a juror whose occupation begins with ‘P’.” So,[ul]
[li]no Plumbers, because they’re all drunks.[/li][li]no Professors, because they’re too analytical[/li][li]no Physicians, too distracted[/li][li]no Priests or Pastors, too merciful.[/li][li]no Psychologists, they’re weak on punishment[/li][/ul]
And so on. Not the best rule of thumb I’ve ever heard, but it does get passed around.

8

Sometimes attorneys prefer non-experts on the jury, on the theory that an expert in a subject relevant to a trial has preconceptions that they cannot influence with testimony. Example: I was up for a trial where the psychology of a sex offender was obviously going to be a major part of testimony. I was asked if I had any special training in that area. Since my entire formal education in that field is 6 hours of college freshman Psych, both attorneys thought that wasn’t enough to disqualify me.

They also look for relationships with defendants and potential biases. Is a juror related to or did he ever have business dealings with the defendant? Or does the juror have any bias against cops? If so, he might not respond to police testimony the same way as someone who thought cops were peachy-keen and real nice, honest people.

9

I was on a jury in a federal drug case the other year. To get 12+2 alternates we started with a pool of around 100+ people, however I’d say that only about half of them went through the voir dire process (where you sit there and they ask questions to see if both sides find you agreeable). After a lot of people had been excused the judge called the attorneys from both sides up, they had a short conversation which I’m pretty sure consisted of the judge saying “We are not going to spend all month cherry-picking jurors. Unless one of these 14 people is a drug kingpin or a complete lunatic let’s wrap this up right now.” and thus we became seated jurors.

I recall a couple of people being excused for what seemed like obvious reasons (not that I necessarily agree or disagree with those reasons, just that I think it was plain what one side of the other was thinking):

  1. Young man who had been a cocaine addict.
  2. Man who was the sole support for his three children, had just lost his job and had to miss a job interview to come down to the courthouse. “I am freaking out, your honor.”
  3. Woman who had a big family vacation already scheduled including plane tickets, hotel reservations and so on (we were looking at 2 weeks maximum service).
  4. Gentleman in his 60s who had been jury foreman before. Older white guy, I’m guessing that the defense thought he would not be well-disposed towards drug crimes in general.
  5. Black lady in her 40s - the defendant was black and his attorneys made her their very first dismissal, I assume because they thought that she would have a negative view of the impact of drugs in the African-American community as a whole.

A variety of other folks stayed seated - wife of a prosecutor, an employee of a law firm (me), etc. I think that either side could have spent all week nitpicking the potential jurors but we wound up with a very intelligent, diligent group of folks.

10

It does seem like a lot of people are being excused for cause, and that appears to be unusual. Hope you can come back and give details once you are free to do so.

I’ve been in two jury pools the past several years (peremptorily challenged both times); the first a murder case, the second (just a couple of months back) three counts of possession with intent to sell.

In each case, only one person was excused by the court. In the first it was a man who frankly declared he could not be impartial because a sister of his had been a murder victim. In the second, it was a man with health problems and some family members with terminal health problems. The rest of us were obliged to sit through the whole voir dire process (even the forthright libertarian who suggested he was “soft” on narcotics - he had to wait for a peremptory challenge, which I’m sure the prosecutor saved up just for him).

So I’m puzzled at so much churn. But maybe this isn’t so odd in rape cases.
How much lawyers actually gain through whatever voodoo they do to pick jurors is debatable. Old Vincent Bugliosi, if I recall, has pretty much decided one can probably do just as well with the first twelve people to come through the gate as you can with a pool that has been picked over. More than once he has found a juror he had pegged as being “against” his side actually being his strongest advocate in the jury room (e.g., the juror in And the Sea Will Tell whom VB dubbed “The Kansas Rock”).

11

Today’s update: I wasn’t chosen to be on the jury.

Backing up a minute, I just want to be clear that the people who were excused yesterday were given a pass if

  • they or a loved one had been the victim of rape or similar assault
  • they or a loved one had had any skirmishes with the law, or any otherwise unsympathetic view of law enforcement
  • they knew anyone on the witness list

Convicted felons, non-citizens and people with any other issues that weren’t addressed in advance of the summons date were weeded out before the panel was even selected. Since this county does have neighborhoods with significant crime issues, I guess it shouldn’t be so surprising that a lot of people got excused in the first round of selection.

So today, there were 20 of us left over from yesterday. More details of the alleged crimes were given. (Two separate rape allegations by women against the same defendant, going back 6 years and more. Defendant’s DNA was recovered from both accusers.) We were asked to give our level of education. Then most of the questions asked by the ADA and defense attorney at this point were clearly trying to get at whether we would buy the arguments each side had prepared.

From the prosecution: You may hear that the accusers were prostitutes with criminal records of their own. Do you think it’s possible for a prostitute to be raped? Do their prior convictions indicate to you that their testimony might not be reliable? What if you heard they were using drugs - do you think drug use could have altered their perception of actual events?

From the defense: Is there anything about the defendant’s demeanor or appearance that bothers you? (Defendant was a late middle-aged guy in a suit and slicked-back hair pulled into a ponytail.) Do you think it is possible for a woman to go through the process of filing a rape charge if in fact consensual sex rather than a rape occurred? Do you think a woman might do this out of a sense of revenge? Do you think a prostitute might accuse a customer of rape if the customer didn’t pay?

A few of the jurors were singled out for more detailed questioning based on answers to earlier questions (their profession, etc.). Two said that after hearing the additional info about the case, specifically about the accusers, they didn’t think they could be impartial. I was studiously ignored by the ADA, but the defense attorney pinned me on the question of whether someone could file a false rape charge. (I said I thought it was possible, but that I needed to hear both sides before I could decide such a thing.)

Then we were all sent out while judge and attorneys conferred. In the end, the rest of the jury selected - 6 people - were all women, older with adult kids (and roughly the same age as the defendant, I think), and not more than a couple years of college education. None of the handful of men left were chosen, and none of the women who had a bachelor’s or more were picked either.

I have to say, as soon as us juror rejects were in the elevator going back down, the general consensus was that the defendant looked like a sleazeball who wouldn’t pay his hookers. The defense would have won if we’d been selected. :stuck_out_tongue:

So that was my experience with juror selection. I find it interesting that men who might have sympathized with the defendant were left out, along with the better educated and mostly younger women.

Sorry, this didn’t turn out to be much of a GQ, but if anyone else has some insights about the selection process I’d be pleased to hear them.

12

here there is seldom any voir dire, and no peremptory challenges at all now.

13

Its interesting to hear how many people were removed. I’ve had jury duty once, and gone to the voir dire process, and we waited all morning and early afternoon before going in there. It was some sort of family sex crimes related thing, something that would be likely to cause a lot of jurors to have an opinion I’d guess. Whatever happened wasn’t in the news as far as I knew, so I came in with no opinions really.

They asked a bunch of questions to people, and the judge extended her normal operating hours by about a half hour to ask more questions (I guess a tight schedule), and the defense attorney asked for another extension just before he got to me, but was denied. So they ended up placing people on the jury right then, but allowing removals without cause for a certain number I guess. There were a substantial number of people being removed with cause, all of them removed by the defense attorney.

I sat down in the jury seats for about a second when the prosecutor decided to use a peremptory challenge (I think, thats when they remove you with no cause right?) and I was off. Its a good thing too, cause I had classes, and had to miss one to go to the court on that day anyway. It was an interesting experience, and interesting to here about yours as well Noc.

I talked to a friend of my mom’s who is a lawyer and he said, the prosecutor probably just removed me because of the uncertainty from the fact that I hadn’t been interviewed and only filled out a questionairre. So on the main subject of having a small portion of the initial pool on the jury, I was the third to the last in the list, and the next was choosen. I guess if those two had also not been choosen they’d have had to get a second pool?

This was in Colorado.

14

Depends on the details of the case–and probably the juristiction, etc. Not to mention how long the case is expected to take.

I served on a jury for a rape case. I think they picked the jury from a group of thirty or so people, and while people who had extensive knowledge of rape statistics and such were given a chance to talk to the judge, I don’t know that anyone was excused because of it.

By dinner that same day, we’d decided that the victim was none too smart, but probably smarter than the rapist, and pondered the rapist’s use of profanity. And, oh yes, decided that the accused was in fact guilty. We then had to recommend sentencing–which means that we got to hear the laundry list of previous convictions, and said “yup, he’s a persistant felony offender, alright”, and were urged to quickly depart the building in groups, while the accused was kept in the courtroom for our protection.

My other more or less on topic anecdote. In the jursidiction where I was called for jury duty, potential jurors served for a month. In theory, in an average month, one would serve on one or two juries, and have to report to the courthouse another 2 or 3 times when one would not be selected. In practice, my jury pool ended up serving on more juries than usual.

There was a trial for bank robbery that month. This had been extensively published in the paper, so many potential jurors had read about it. Plus, it was due to be a multi-day trial, unlike most. So, the day they tried to seat a jury in that case, anyone not seated in a jury that morning was summoned to the courthouse in the afternoon. This gave a pool of 120 or so, rather than 30, the more common number.

They still were unable to seat a jury. Partly because of the newspaper, but mostly because one member of that jury pool had been a hostage at the bank that was robbed by these robbers. And you’d better believe he’d told his story to anyone who would listen during his experience as a juror. So when it became evident that he’d contaminated the jury pool, the court flung up its hands in dispair, and continued the trial.

15

Logistical question: At that point, wouldn’t the accused have been safely restrained? or were they thinking he might break free and attempt to assault one of you? Or that he had “friends” waiting around outside who might assault you in support of their buddy?

Never served on a jury myself. I was called in for jury duty once in the early 80s - waited around all day, was called into the courtroom on a minor civil case, but they got their 12 jurors and alternates before they even spoke to me, so I went home 8 dollars richer after being bored out of my mind. I did get called again last year; the way our county works, you are in a pool for the same day a week, a couple weeks in a row, and you’re supposed to call the night before to find out whether you’re needed. I was not needed either day (which was a relief… as the second day, it flat out slipped my mind!!). That time, I had a medical excuse (ongoing sleep problems) so I would not have served anyway.

16

I’ve got jury duty a week from Monday, a first for me. I practice law in a moderately sized town so I’ll almost certainly know the lawyers, especially if it’s a criminal case. Wonder if I’ll get cut. :slight_smile:

17

I have been called for jury duty twice while I lived in California (didn’t get called up for voir dire either time- they got all the jurors they needed before they got to me). One was a civil case where an apartment tenant was suing their landlord over a slip and fall. One was a criminal case that I think involved meth (they asked potential jurors if they had ever used pseudoephedrine). The process, level of questions, and number of people eliminated was quite similar in both.

18

I’m a little confused here, as to how you would know the details of the cases and level of questioning if you weren’t sworn in for voir dire first. Can procedures be that different from one jurisdiction to another?

19

I sat in a courtroom with other potential jurors and watched as they did voir dire questioning of other prospective jurors. They never called me up into the jury box to be questioned.

20

Interesting. My entire panel was sworn in before we heard a single detail about the case. We were also told at that point that we couldn’t discuss anything we were about to hear with other prospective juror unless we were excused.

I would have thought that letting you hear about the case without swearing you to keep silence first would raise issues if in fact you were later selected as a juror for that case. Maybe it is a case of YJ(urisdiction)MV.