It appears that State v. Andujar is the vehicle that our Supreme Court has been waiting for to serve as the catalyst for changing long-perceived shortcomings in our jury selection system. These shortcomings are cataloged and commented upon in reports of the Supreme Court’s Judicial Conference on Jury Selection, from its appointed expert, Mary R. Rose, Ph.D. and from a wide variety of participants in our civil and criminal justice systems. The five-month undertaking was formidable. We commend the court for its leadership and the participants for their contributions. The ultimate success of these changes remains to be studied. We hold our applause.

The committee focused on several areas, including systemic barriers to jury service, conduct of voir dire and the exercise of challenges, and strategies to address institutional and implicit bias. Issues that relate to assembling a truly diverse group of potential jurors and using their time efficiently were informed by data from various empirical sources. Its final report recommended tweaks to the system of assembling panels of prospective jurors which are not within the purview of this editorial. Rather, we focus on the elimination of explicit and implicit bias and their relationship to jury selection.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

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]