Adversary System and Voir Dire
The United States of America uses an adversarial trial system. Int he adversary system, opposing parties argue that their facts of the case are correct and that their opponents' are not. Under this system, it is the trier of fact, either the judge or the jury, who weighs the evidence and arguments to determine the truth. Therefore, jurors play a very important role in our nation's judicial system. Choosing a jury with impartial jurors is important because it helps to ensure a fair trial. Attorneys use a system called voir dire to help select a neutral jury out of the large group of potential jurors.
To recruit potential jurors, the state compiles a master list from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records and voter registration lists that include all eligible community members. Potential jurors are randomly pulled from a master list and are summoned for jury duty on a specific date. After potential jurors report for duty, they are assigned to a courtroom for voir dire.
Voir dire is the process used for jury selection, and allows each party the opportunity to ensure that the jury is the fair and balanced. This works through the questioning of the potential jurors by the attorneys representing each party to the case. The purpose of voir dire is to determine whether potential jurors have any prejudice or bias that might affect the trial.
Each attorney hopes to choose a jury that will decide in their party's favor. Attorneys use the voir dire process to identify the potential jurors that would be more inclined to favor the opposing party, and then attempts to remove them through the use of challenges, which are also known as strikes.
To recruit potential jurors, the state compiles a master list from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records and voter registration lists that include all eligible community members. Potential jurors are randomly pulled from a master list and are summoned for jury duty on a specific date. After potential jurors report for duty, they are assigned to a courtroom for voir dire.
Voir dire is the process used for jury selection, and allows each party the opportunity to ensure that the jury is the fair and balanced. This works through the questioning of the potential jurors by the attorneys representing each party to the case. The purpose of voir dire is to determine whether potential jurors have any prejudice or bias that might affect the trial.
Each attorney hopes to choose a jury that will decide in their party's favor. Attorneys use the voir dire process to identify the potential jurors that would be more inclined to favor the opposing party, and then attempts to remove them through the use of challenges, which are also known as strikes.
Challenges
Thoughts on the American Jury System
Robert Frost"We have a jury system which is superior to any in the world. Its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty in finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read."
|
Mark Twain"A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."
|
|
|
|
|
Voir Dire Attorney Worksheet
|
|
Hypothetical Case Background
People of Indiana v. Mr. Francis Dale
Mr. Dale, a German born, 44-year-old single man lives along with his dog, Rufus, in Oak Park, Indiana. Rufus is a former military dog that has been trained to kill. Mr. Dale is known as a loner. He has a very heavy accent. It is common knowledge that some neighborhood teenagers do not like Mr. dale and he does not like them. Every year his house is egged on Halloween and his home is pummeled with snowballs in the winter.
On October, 31, 2011, Mr. Dale had just returned from walking Rufus. As he got to his front porch he was looking at his mail, with his back turned. When he opened his front door, an egg that was thrown by someone within a group of teenagers whizzed by his head, startling him. He turned around and said something in German. Suddenly, Rufus ran and attacked one of the teenagers, 16-year-old John Meyers.
John suffered severe injuries and died in the hospital 3 days later. Mr. Dale claims the dog was startled and attacked instinctively to protect him. The teenagers claim that Mr. Dale commanded Rufus to attack. Based on this information, the prosecution has charged Mr. Dale with murder, or alternatively, with manslaughter.
On October, 31, 2011, Mr. Dale had just returned from walking Rufus. As he got to his front porch he was looking at his mail, with his back turned. When he opened his front door, an egg that was thrown by someone within a group of teenagers whizzed by his head, startling him. He turned around and said something in German. Suddenly, Rufus ran and attacked one of the teenagers, 16-year-old John Meyers.
John suffered severe injuries and died in the hospital 3 days later. Mr. Dale claims the dog was startled and attacked instinctively to protect him. The teenagers claim that Mr. Dale commanded Rufus to attack. Based on this information, the prosecution has charged Mr. Dale with murder, or alternatively, with manslaughter.
Potential Jurors
QuestioningEach side will be able to ask each potential juror up to three questions. We will alternate with the state asking the first question and the defense asking the first question of the next prospective juror.
|
SelectionEach side will have to deliberate and select one juror out of the pool to eliminate and state their reasons why. (Attorneys do not have to state reasons why they are eliminating a juror, but we want to understand each side's process and reasoning.)
|
Discussion1. Was your group successful in eliminating a potentially biased juror? (Why or why not? What other questions might you have asked the juror to seek biases?
2. Will voir dire eliminate all potentially biased juror? Why or why not? 3. If the voir dire does not eliminate all potentially biased jurors, why do we even have voir dire? Why do we have trial by jury? |
Voir Dire Simulation Activity
Voir Dire Elimination Sheet
Voir Dire Elimination Sheet Example
|