Research on the Format
and Effectiveness of Voir DirePerceptions and opinions about the voir dire proce-
dure are mixed; while some have described it as an
essential part of the trial process, others claim that the
time and financial resources consumed by this process
contribute to a lack of efficiency in the legal system.
As the Sixth Amendment guarantees each criminal
defendant the right to an impartial jury, it seems cer-
tain that some form of voir dire is a legal necessity to
assess the venire panel for preexisting biases.
However, some critics maintain that the information
obtained during the voir dire process is not sufficient
or appropriate for identifying juror bias. Therefore,
many have argued for a reduction in both the time and
scope of voir dire and attorney involvement in the
process. Although research on actual voir dire pro-
ceedings is limited, an observational study of voir dire
in four felony cases found that approximately half the
discussion during voir dire concerned jurors’ ability to
fulfill their role and remain impartial. The findings in
this study suggest that attorneys can be effective at
challenging members of the venire panel, who are
generally biased against their side. However, it is pre-
mature to draw conclusions based on these data as the
sample of cases observed was very small.
In addition to debate over voir dire in general, there
is controversy concerning the length and scope of voir
dire and the level of attorney participation. Proponents
of extended voir dire claim that it is necessary to ade-
quately assess juror bias and to provide both parties
with enough information to properly exercise peremp-
tory challenges. However, critics of extended voir dire
argue that it wastes valuable time and monetary
resources in light of the nation’s large backlog of cases.
These critics argue for minimal voir dire and limited
attorney involvement and claim that the high status of
judges and the serious nature that surrounds the ques-
tioning will encourage jurors to be forthcoming with
information. In addition, opponents of extended voir
dire claim that attorneys abuse the voir dire procedure
by using it for purposes other than assessing juror bias.
Indeed, according to critics, these inappropriate uses
include ingratiation and establishing rapport with the
jury, obtaining public commitments from jurors prior to
the start of the trial, and prematurely presenting case
arguments. The most central critique of extended voir
dire is that it does not result in a more effective elimi-
nation of biased jurors than does minimal voir dire. In
addition, although extended voir dire has been shown toreduce perceptions of defendant culpability compared
with minimal voir dire after juror exposure to pretrial
publicity, research has failed to find evidence that
extended voir dire is superior to minimal voir dire in
reducing the biasing impact of pretrial publicity on
juror judgments.
Despite the failure to demonstrate the superiority of
extended voir dire over minimal voir dire as a safeguard,
there is evidence to suggest that extended voir dire may
be the preferable format for obtaining honest answers
from jurors. Although it is possible that minimal voir
dire in which a judge conducts the questioning may be
more efficient than extended voir dire in terms of time
and cost, existing data suggest that judge-conducted voir
dire may be less likely to assist in the identification of
biased jurors than attorney-conducted voir dire. Mock
jury research has demonstrated that participants are
more honest and forthcoming when voir dire question-
ing is performed by an attorney rather than by a judge.
This finding is also supported by research on informa-
tion disclosure in interview settings, which demon-
strates that when there is a great amount of social
distance between the interviewer and the interviewee,
the interviewee may feel pressure to respond in an
“acceptable” manner rather than responding honestly.
The status differential between judges and jurors is
larger than that between attorneys and jurors, suggesting
that prospective jurors would be more likely to provide
honest responses to questioning by attorneys rather than
by a judge. Attorneys are free to move around the court-
room and decrease their physical distance from the
venire panel, whereas the large social distance between
judges and prospective jurors is exacerbated by the
placement of the judge behind the elevated bench.
In addition, research on social interactions also
demonstrates that people are more willing to disclose
information to people who appear friendly and warm
than to those who seem detached and reserved. Judges
are compelled by their role to maintain a formal and
proper demeanor during trial proceedings, and although
they may act in a kindly manner toward the venire
members, it would be inappropriate for judges to
attempt to curry favor with the jurors. Conversely, attor-
neys may take advantage of their partisan role and act
in a warm, friendly, and sociable manner toward the
venire panel. This type of behavior toward the prospec-
tive jurors may also work to limit the perceived social
distance between attorneys and jurors and to increase
disclosure and honesty during voir dire.
Although attorney-conducted voir dire may be a
mechanism for eliciting honest information fromVoir Dire——— 857V-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 857