The United States version of jury selection varies widely from other places around the world. One of the major differences is the length of the peremptory challenges, and the extent to which they are utilized. This extensive process is uniquely American and is referred to as voir dire. The purpose of this is to establish if the potential jurors can be impartial. However, the purpose actually is deeper and more cunning. Many times, as judges and lawyers have both agreed on, the goal when selecting a jury is to gain an advantage for your argument. Who is most likely to believe your side of the story? That’s the juror attorneys will aim to pick in the trial process.
However basic, primitive, or obvious this may sound, the actual process is not as effective as it might seem. Since many other countries have thrived without the lengthy voir dire, such as Canada, England, and even Australia, what is the point of the American voir dire if all it does is extend the bias? It has been widely argued, especially in this article, that the process itself is poorly designed. Despite this, there are a few benefits that do play a role. Many of these are really interesting concepts to consider, because most of the time information on juries and the selection of them is only so detailed.
For example, according to Nancy S. Marder, the voir dire can kickstart the development of a judge-jury relationship, as they do work together if you really think about it. Also to be mentioned is the lack of design to fully accomplish the goal, but there is room for improvement. I learned how voir dire also transforms someone originally reluctant to participate to a responsive and responsible juror.
This is achieved in a multitude of ways, but mostly through the juror becoming more invested and informed. I thought it was intriguing to learn the federal court have voir dire done fast and by the judge, which makes it way less of a big deal. This was all new to me, as I thought prior to doing this research that the jury selection was the same throughout all courts. A lot of this process is open for interpretation for effective it truly is. There have even been studies that look into how to make voir dire actually work. Traditionally, there is an individual questionnaire that are likely to improve the chances of catching potential biases. However, this takes extensive time and money for the attorneys and their client because they have to go through and sort them. On the flip side, the questions in open court are seemingly more intimidating but they are actually less invasive than anything one on one that might occur. The jury is a very interesting concept to me, and I am eager to extend my research further and include some of the key elements in my original work as well.
