The Judicial Council of California has a fascinating interactive web site to teach judges the law of voir dire.
This was featured in the National Center for State Courts' Jur-E-Bulletin several weeks ago, but in case you haven't yet subscribed to Jur-E-Bulletin or missed that issue, it's worth a plug here. The site is part multiple-choice test, part geeky video game. You play a judge, conducting a jury selection in a criminal case. As in a real voir dire, all kinds of questions come up, and since you're the judge, you have to answer them. Early on, the questions are procedural, like this one on "mini-openings":
Q2. The lawyers ask if they can give mini-opening statements to the entire panel before voir dire begins. How do you rule?
A. Granted. Mini-opening statements are mandatory if requested.
B. Denied. Mini-opening statements are prohibited.
C. Denied. Mini-opening statements are a waste of time.
D. Granted. Mini-opening statements aid the voir dire process.
If you click "D," the program praises you:
We agree.
Though not mandatory, mini-opening statements help jurors understand the goal of voir dire and why questions are being asked. When jurors understand the process, they tend to be more cooperative, give more focused answers, and are less likely to try to duck service. The use of mini-opening statements is supported by Cal Rules of Ct 2.1034. Attorneys are to give these statements, limited to just a few minutes, to jurors at the beginning of the selection process. Advance notice of mini-opening statements, as well as which issues will be off-limits in those statements, should be addressed at the pre-voir dire conference.
"I can be fair"
Then come the hardship questions. What about the juror who is breastfeeding? A nurse with patient responsibilities? Under very stressful circumstances at home? There is a picture of each prospective juror, so you have to look them in the eye if you're going to make them stay. You rule, and the program tells you whether you ruled right.
Next come challenges for cause:
Q13. Defense challenges Juror 10 for cause: “I was the victim of an attack with a deadly weapon—a knife—nine years ago. But I feel I can be fair in this trial.”
How do you rule?
A. Granted.
B. Denied.
The defendant on trial is charged with assault with a deadly weapon, and that weapon is alleged to be a knife, so you may not like the Judicial Council's answer -- which is all the more reason to be ready for it:
B. We agree.
You should grant for actual bias only if there exists “a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party.” [CCP §225(b)(1)(C).]
Then come peremptory strikes, with new juror pictures stepping in for the prospective jurors who are excused. With peremptory strikes come Batson questions, a lot of them, and accompanying procedural questions you might not have thought of:
Q28. The prosecution wants the peremptory back that it lost due to the Wheeler/Batson objection.
How do you rule? Should you give back that peremptory?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Maybe.
I'm not actually sure that civilians like us are supposed to be on this site; as I poke around to other pages, I've gotten a few "you're not authorized" messages. But for all trial lawyers, especially newer ones, it's a great review of the issues that can come up in voir dire, and a great preview of how your judge may be predisposed to respond.
It's also an impressive effort on the California Judicial Council's part both to use new technology and to offer training to judges. The site credits Hon. Alex Ricciardulli, Steve Boga, Tim Hallahan, and graphic designer/programmer Mandy Covey for the work. The Judicial Council's Benchbook for jury trials and jury management is informative as well.
Related posts here:
(Photo by Paul Downey at http://www.flickr.com/photos/psd/90418645/; license details there.)
