|
Voir
Dire and Jury Selection
ADDRESSING
THE MYTHS OF VOIR DIRE (continued)
As previously
mentioned, the one thing that interferes with jury selection more
than anything else is the concept of "profiling," or reliance
on stereotypes and folklore to choose who will be each side's best
and worst jurors. Why is this? Statistics and stereotypes do not
work when applied to small groups. For example, suppose 70 percent
of Polish housewives are tough on crime. During voir dire, an attorney
encounters a Polish housewife. The question remains: Is she part
of the 70 percent who are tough on crime or the 30 percent who are
anti-government? On account of the small sample size, lawyers simply
do not have the cushion that other people using statistics or stereotypes
have. Once again, to make up for this, counsel must get the jury
talking early on in the process.
Voir dire also
provides the unique opportunity to expose a case's weakness and
understand jurors' reactions to these weaknesses. If bias exists
and lawyers uncover it, they can be considered lucky even if everyone
else hears this bias. If a juror expresses an unfavorable bias,
thank the juror for being honest. Also, inquire as to what the others
think. Some will agree, some will disagree, and others will not
have anything to say on the topic. Regardless, discovering and dealing
with bias during voir dire makes attorneys smarter and teaches them
how best to persuade those who will become jurors.
Finally, be
aware of non-verbal behavior. Avoid stiffness and a controlling
posture. Being stern, authoritative, and serious is only one style
of effective communication; it is not the only and certainly not
the best for voir dire. During voir dire, attorneys are like hosts;
how they act, their demeanor, and their responses to the jurors'
candor will set the tone for the situation. In short, the questions
are as important as the way in which they are asked.
|
