Colin McEnroe Show: Should Connecticut Change How It Selects Juries?
Some lawyers think individual voir dire wastes time and money.
Until recently, I didn't understand the degree to which Connecticut jury selection process -- called the voir dire -- differs from those of other states.
Connecticut grants -- as a standard practice -- the right of each side to question each prospective juror while the others are sequestered. I just assumed that's how they did it everywhere else. In fact, there are states in which lawyers can seek, for special reasons, to handle jury selection that way, but no other states where that's the default setting.
We are the slowest state for jury selection and we are twice as slow as the next slowest state in felony cases and four times as slow as the next slowest state in civil cases. In Texas, they probably try, convict and execute defendants in the time it takes us to empanel half a jury. To know whether our system "works better," you'd have to be able to measure fairness.
Send to friend
Printer-friendly version
Comments
E-mail from Russell
Coming in a little late here, but I was on a jury in federal court in new haven a few years back. We did have to stand in front of the entire courtroom and answer questions from the judge. We were then plucked from a lineup "dodgeball style". Yes, it was uncomfortable, and hard to answer some questions honestly. But, it also kept people from outright lying about being racist etc. to keep themselves from serving.
Russell
E-mail from Rand
The great majority of people brought to trial ARE in fact guilty. But so what? That doesn’t mean any particular individual on trial is guilty.
I once asked a lawyer friend of mine (a federal prosecutor) what sort of question he might ask me during voir dire. He said, “I’d ask you, ‘What percentage of people brought to trial do you think are in fact guilty?’” I said I’d guestimate, oh, maybe 60-65%??
He said, “You’re a great defense juror. The figure is way over 90%.”
E-mail from Aynonmous
as someone who actually has and does pick juries (civil ones), the system is awkward, archaic, and, well silly is too harsh, but way less than ideal. what is right with the system, jury of "peers" is what is wrong, as you never have a jury of peers, EVER. the federal version is scary group bullying, but would seem more efficient time wise, if not result wise.
professional juries? paid to sit and hear cases for a stretch of time? Pay 'Em!!!
there is so much BS involved, by the time the jury knows what they are doing and why, the window to reach them is closed. we spend more time doing background checks and interviews for minimum wage employment than we do with 95% of juries, civil or criminal, unless you are a wealthy corporate white collar criminal and can hire a voir dire consultant and also research the jury.
Post new comment