125factors, both sociological and psychological, can influence the means by which a
juror reaches a decision about a defendant's guilt. The presumed impartiality of
each juror is questionable, and several methods tor assuring impartiality have been
implemented. Each of these factors and methods must be considered by both the
defense and the prosecution in selecting a final jury. This section examines these as
well as other important questions concerning jury selection.
Jen has been arrested and charged with felonious assault in a domestic dispute in which
she was recently involved. Let us suppose that Jen has considered her plea bargaining
options and decided against them, preferring instead to risk the trial process. She believes
that she is completely innocent and that a jury ot her peers will also see it that way. 1 hus,
Jen has made the decision to place her future in the hands of the 12 jurors to be selected,
(liven this, it makes sense that Jen will want the jury to be composed of people most likely
to find her innocent. The prosecution, on the other hand, will desire a jury composition
that will be convinced of her guilt. Jen and her defense counsel must now be concerned
with how the members of the jury are selected and what, if anything, they can do to
impact Jen's chance ot acquittal. To further complicate matters, Jen happens to be a well-
known public figure, and anyone who watches television has heard about her case. What
are the defense's chances of finding a jury who lias not already developed an opinion
about the case? The media has been quick to suggest Jen's guilt, and polls have shown
that the majority of the public believes her to be guilty even before the trial has begun.
These are important considerations for the defendant in this case which will undoubtedly
effect the outcome of the trial.
Literature Review
The process of jury selection spans several stages, involving both the prosecution
and the defense. After an initial jury pool is chosen, a panel is selected for a wir
dire hearing. At this hearing, each prospective juror is questioned by the judge
and often the defense and prosecution. The voir dire is intended to identify and
dismiss those who would be unable to render an impartial verdict. An individual
may be dismissed by the judge alone or challenged for cause by the prosecution or
defense. Challenges for cause address specific issues, such as the prospective jurors'
relation to the defendant, exposure to media coverage of the case, or expressed
personal biases about the defendant or case material. In addition, most jurisdictions
allow the defense and prosecution a certain number of peremptory challenges. These
challenges may be used to dismiss a juror without having to provide a specific
reason (Sii'ain v. Alabama, 1965). Peremptory challenges may not, however, be used
to dismiss a prospective juror solely because of his or her race (Baston v. Kentucky,
1986). This exception does not, as yet, extend to religion, gender, or national origin
(L. Wrightsman et a!., 1994).
The voir dire process has been the focus of much interest in the field of forensic
psychology. Consider the issue of pretrial publicity. While many questions remain
unanswered with regard to pretrial publicity, there is ample evidence that it can
effect the jurors' ability to be impartial (Dexter, Cutler, & Moran, 1992). Several
)ury Selection 125