As a defense lawyer, I’ve always believed that voir dire in a criminal case is, in many ways, the most important part of a trial. It’s an opportunity to make a good first impression; to find out who is likely to accept the theory of the case; to disclose biases and prejudices and, importantly, to determine who can set them aside. I think it is interesting to explore peoples’ backgrounds and attitudes, to try and identify people with whom I can communicate and ultimately to get them on the jury. But to do that I need candid information. The usual criminal voir dire process often doesn’t produce that.
I begin each criminal trial with certain rebuttable presumptions: 1) Most jurors don’t want to be there. 2) Jurors do not trust lawyers. 3) Jurors hate crime. 4) Jurors believe the defendant is probably guilty. 5) If the defendant is a minority, jurors believe he or she is definitely guilty. 6) Jurors are afraid of defendants.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
