|
Voir
Dire and Jury Selection
INFORMATION
GATHERING (continued)
Strategies antithetical
to voir dire can also be found in a closing argument. For instance,
a closing is a monologue in which the attorney strongly advocates
a particular position at all times. In order to do so, he/she dismisses,
downplays, or ignores the opposition's strengths and capitalizes
on its weaknesses. Also, there must be a lecture about the law so
that the jurors will understand how to apply the rules and statutes.
Now, compare
these characteristics to those of an effective voir dire in which:
– Counsel members create a conversation and encourage everyone
to speak.
– Lawyers listen more than they speak.
– They utilize open-ended questions that prompt jurors to self-disclose
what can be sensitive information.
– They expose rather than hide their case's weaknesses in order
to find out who disagrees with particular positions and the reasons
behind this disagreement.
– Attorneys build rapport with the group.
ADDRESSING
THE MYTHS OF VOIR DIRE
Obviously, attorneys must travel the length of the communication
spectrum during each and every trial, and in order to be most effective,
they have to successfully employ a broad range of skills and techniques.
Unfortunately, my experience tells me that most lawyers favor indoctrination
over information, which corresponds to the previously mentioned
survey results. As a result, I sometimes sit in court to assist
with jury selection and want to say at the end, "Great, now
I know what you think of your case, but I don’t know very much
about what the potential jurors think."
|
