What do attorneys look for when selecting jurors

What are lawyers on both sides of a case looking for in a lineup of random people? The answer, of course, depends on the case itself. Instead, using a mixture of intense questioning, keen observation, and stereotyping, they get to eliminate people they think would hurt their case.

What we try to do is think of what backgrounds, life experiences, cognitive styles, opinions, and values jurors might have that would make them less receptive to our case. Here are a few things lawyers take into consideration when trying to figure you out. Attorneys pay close attention to any relationships that might color your opinions. D , a trial consultant and forensic psychologist.

This is all very important, because research shows that when juries deliberate, they spend 50 percent of their time talking about their own personal experiences as a way of judging the case. LinkedIn where the profile owner can see who visited the profile. If one has the means and the case merits it, one can also research prospective jurors for their political contributions, employment history Linkedin , membership in religious organizations and property ownership.

Such information may be the very information an attorney would like to ask of jurors, but legally cannot. Indeed, in People v. Wheeler 22 Cal. Communities Served. This type of question explains the law, the theory of the case and related issues in layman's terms.

The word educational is used because it merely "educates" the prospective jury about the legal aspects of the case. Of course, the best way to educate the jury panel on the law is to place in layman terms a clear and concise definition of what the particular term of law means. After the attorney explains what the particular legal principle means, the attorney should elicit a commitment from all members of the panel that they can and will follow this law.

For example, if the law states that if a manufacturer produces a defective product or one that is unreasonably dangerous, and that unreasonably dangerous product causes injury to an individual, then the law says that the individual is entitled to be compensated by money damages. The attorney should explain this in very simple laymen terms and then ask the panel to respond to the fairness of that law. Educational questions merely educate the jury so that by the time the jurors are introduced to the jury charge, they are well familar with the legal principles and how they are to be applied to the case.

The psychological principle behind the educational question is that memory improves by repetition and reminds the jurors that they will hear a similar definition at the end of the trial. These questions truly help "unselect" prospective jurors.

All selectional questions are defined as those which are open-ended whereby the prospective juror must answer with more than just yes or no. Selectional questions usually begin with "how do you feel" or "what is your opinion on a particular issue," and "What do you think about.

Also, the more information an attorney can obtain from a prospective juror, the better the psychological assessment will be. It is during the response to the selectional questions, that a rich source of non-verbal communication is elicited from the prospective juror.

It is much easier for a prospective juror to lie by answering yes or no to a particular question, however if the prospective juror is asked a selectional question, it will make it more diffucult for that individual to hide his true emotions and feelings.

For example, asking prospective jurors how they feel about punitive damages and their feelings as to whether or not awarding money against corporations makes them more responsible to individuals in the future can be very telling.

Correlational questions are those which elicit answers whereby deductions can be made. A correlation means that there is a reciprocal relationship between two comparable entities. For example, there is a high correlation between long-term smokers and cancer.

In other words, those two factors, smoking and cancer, have a high relationship between them. Attorneys constantly use correlational questions without conscious awareness. For example, any plaintiff's attorney knows that there is a high correlation between individuals who are presently in the insurance business and those who are defense minded.

A creative attorney can use correlational questions to indirectly tell whether or not one will be a favorable juror. An example of a correlational question might be to ask some panel members if they have ever been a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit. This will give an idea as to whether or not they will be anti-plaintiff because of their experiences, as a defendant. The attorney can be very creative when constructing correlational questions.

For example, it is common sense that a spouse that has numerous "nicknames" or funny words to describe his or her spouse is probably very happily married. It does not make sense that someone who has no love for his or her partner would refer to the partner as sweetie, honey, lovebird, etc. Ergo, it logically follows that if you are looking for prospective jurors who are happily married perhaps you have a wrongful death case where a young happily married lost her sweetheart this is the type of question which can identify the "good" jurors without being so obvious as a red flag to the other side.

The best way to effectively construct correlational questions is to ask 1 what characteristics or attributes am I looking for in the prospective jurors, 2 what answers could a prospective juror give which would identify him as being a favorable juror and 3 how can the question be phrased so that the answer is not a dead give-away to my opponent that the prospective juror must be struck.

Analogy questions are more of a technique than a true question. What the attorney attempts to do in an analogy is to ask a question which will enable the members of the panel to place themselves in the plaintiff's shoes.

For example, in a criminal case, a good analogy question for the criminal defense lawyer to ask would be "Is there anybody on the panel who has ever been falsely accused of anything?

As one can see, it forces the jurors to place themselves in a similar but not identical situation as the plaintiff. In the medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has placed trust in a physician and later learned that the physician totally failed in this professional duty. Every good trial attorney knows that it is reversible error to ask the jurors to place themselves in the shoes of the plaintiff when making their decision.

However, there does not appear to be any rule which prevents a trial lawyer from asking the jurors how they felt when they were placed in similar situations as the plaintiff. The purpose of asking the analogy type question is not only to have the prospective jurors emphathize with the plaintiff's plight, but also this method allows the trial attorney to help "de-select" jurors which have had no similar experiences to that of the plaintiff.

Analogy questions can be creative and used in every type of jury trial. Worthless questions are the last category of questioning techniques. Any attorney who has ever done any trial work has probably been guilty of using "worthless" questions.

Basically, worthless questions are those which elicit no relevant information from the juror, and require the prospective juror to give a socially acceptable response. Examples of worthless questions are to ask prospective jurors if they could listen to the evidence and decide the case based on the facts.

The reason why this is a "worthless" question is because unless the prospective juror has a physical problem there is no reason why he could not listen to the evidence. Asking the prospective jurors if they could decide the case based on the facts requires only a socially acceptable answer and does not provide the attorney any information which will help in the de-selection process. Another worthless question is to ask the prospective jurors if they are "biased or prejudiced" toward a particular issue, plaintiff, or any other relevant fact in the case.

The reason why this question will not elicit any purposeful information from the prospective jurors is that no one likes to admit they are "biased or prejudiced. This way, prospective jurors can come forward and tell the attorney what their feelings are without being labled a biased or prejudiced person.

Other worthless questions would be asking the prospective jurors if they could follow the court's instructions, if they could follow the law as the judge gives it to them, and asking if they would be a fair juror. The goal of using the questioning techniques is closely tied into a golden rule used in all jury selections.

Questioning techniques should be used with the goal in mind that the trial attorney is trying to decide which prospective jurors will most likely identify and relate to the plaintiff and their witnesses. Questioning techniques are a tool to allow the trial attorney to "de-select" those ten or twelve worse prospective jurors who will be unfavorable to the plaintiff's case. Questioning techniques can also be used to reiterate the case theme and at the same time, determine which prospective juror is most reciprocal to the case theme.

A prerequisite to using questioning techniques is to first determine what percentage of a trial lawyer's voir dire time should be spent educating, versus selecting the jury. In a case where the legal theories are very simple, the attorney would proably want to spend more time on the selectional, analogy and correlational questions versus the educational questions.

This proposition ties back to why preparation for voir dire should be the last stage before the actual trial. Many attorneys are concerned about overly identifying the "ideal" juror, whereby, the opponent immediately strikes the prospective juror.

Since jury selection should be considered a "de-selection process," questions should always be framed with the goal of de-selecting in mind. For example, finding people who cannot follow a particular law or could not compensate the plaintiff for the amount the attorney is asking for, or does not have any background characteristics which would enable that prospective juror to identify with the plaintiff, tells the attorney which individuals need to be "de-selected".

If any attorney were to ask who on the panel could award the plaintiff a million dollalrs and several people on the panel raise their hands, this is a red flag for the opponent to strike these prospective jurors.

Remember that the goal of jury selection is to strike the ten worst, not to pontificate on who would be the twelve best. The term scientific jury selection was created in the early 's as a result of social scientists aiding defense lawyers in their quest to obtain an acquittal for Father Philip Berrigan and seven other defendants indicted by the federal government for raiding draft boards and conspiring to kidnap Henry Kissinger. Since that time, other major political trials have used the services of scientific jury selection to obtain acquittals or help defendants receive lenient sentences.

Since that time cases such as the Camden 28, the Gainesville 8, the Angela Davis trial, the trial of Wounded Knee, the Stans-Mitchell trial, and most recently the John Delorean trial have used scientific jury selection with successful results. In the early 's, the term scientific jury selection almost always meant using community surveys to assess the community make-up and the community attitude toward a particular case or issue in the case.

Since that time scientific jury selection has taken on a more general meaning whereby certain psychological as well as scientific techniques are combined. The more appropriate term for the combination of psychological and scientific techniques is called social science techniques. The most common social science techniques applied to jury selection are: analyzing group dynamics, the use of community surveys for pretrial publicity and change of venue motions, juror profiles, in court observation, mock juries, and shadow juries.

Every attorney knows that a verdict is a result of the interaction of twelve individuals. It is never truly the voice of one member of the jury. Therefore, it is extremely important for the attorney to do a psychological analysis of what the group dynamics of the jury will be. In order to analyze the group dynamics, the attorney must try and assess what part a prospective juror will play.

The authors of a well-known book called Jury Works have categorized individuals into specific categories. These categories are leaders, followers, fillers, negotiators, and hold-outs. If an attorney can assess which particular category an individual is most likely to fall into, the attorney can try to pick favorable jurors to play the part of leaders and negotiators.

Trial lawyers should ask themselves, even if this particular juror leans toward my opponent's case, will that juror be a leader or will that juror play the part of a follower or a filler. One of the best ways to assess what role a prospective juror will play in the group dynamics is to analyze the individual's occupation.

It is common knowledge that the most important aspect of whether or not a prospective juror is deemed favorable or unfavorable is usually a result of his occupation. Trial lawyers for many years have been striking prospective jurors based on the duties of their occupations. What we do for eight hours of our work day tells a lot about our personality. By analyzing the actual duties and qualifications of a particular job, the trial lawyer can assess that prospective juror's participation and role in deciding what the verdict will be.

The leader is the most powerful member of the jury. This type of individual will play a very active role in helping other members of the jury decide what the verdict should be. Whereas it is impossible to assess each time who will play the part of the leader, one can assess leadership qualities by duties of their occupation, hobbies, participation in other organizations outside of work, and general philosophical beliefs.

For example, if an individual is in an occupation whereby he supervises numerous people, it can be surmised that he is used to giving orders and directing people on how they should act within their jobs.