705

SCIENTIFICJURYSELECTION

Scientific jury selection (SJS) is the use of a survey to

decide which jurors to favor in a trial. Prior to the

1970s, jury selection was done by attorneys based on

their hunches. The new quantitative method was wel-

comed enthusiastically by trial attorneys. Social scien-

tists were more reserved. SJS led to the employment of

social scientists as trial consultants. This entry

describes traditional jury selection as conducted by

attorneys, reviews the origin of SJS, presents an exam-

ple of a 2003 survey used in Florida to implement SJS,

and examines evidence on the utility of SJS.

Voir direis the process at the beginning of a trial

when prospective jurors, called venirepersons, are

examined verbally to determine their fitness for service

as jurors in a particular trial. An unlimited number of

venirepersons can be excused for cause—that is, found

unfit by the trial judge for reasons of incompetence or

prejudice. Venirepersons are also excused peremptorily,

that is, by the attorneys without stated reason. The rules

for using peremptory excusals vary by jurisdiction and

preferences of trial judges. Judges differ widely in the

questions they ask or allow the attorneys to ask. Some

judges allow venirepersons to complete trial-specific

questionnaires constructed by the attorneys. The infor-

mation about venirepersons available to the attorneys

varies greatly, given the court’s voir dire practice.

Nevertheless, in U.S. courts, the parties (prosecution,

plaintiff, and defendant) have a right to a certain num-

ber of peremptory excusals. These peremptory excusals

are determined and used during the jury selection

process.

Traditional Attorney-Conducted

Jury Selection

How do attorneys evaluate venirepersons and decide

whom to favor or oppose? Lawyers are sometimes

influenced by the published preferences of famous

colleagues—the idols of the tribe. These famous trial

lawyers have published preferences mainly based on

ethnic, religious, gender, and occupational stereotypes

that may often conflict with each other. These stereo-

types were formed long ago and have no application

to modern jurors or cases. Many attorneys hold other

stereotypes that may have some limited value, for

example, that nurses are unsympathetic to pain and

suffering or that people who use newspaper coupons

give stingy monetary awards. In addition, a trial attor-

ney’s experience with a particular type of juror may

result in prejudice for or against such jurors in future

trials. Attorneys also evaluate venirepersons on the

basis of “vibes”—their impression of the venireper-

son’s nonverbal behavior and deportment. Generally,

the attorney has a limited profile of good and bad

jurors derived from advice from other attorneys, prej-

udices, speculation, and experience.

Origin of Scientific Jury Selection

In the 1972 Harrisburg Seven trial of Vietnam War

resisters, Jay Schulman and colleagues decided to eval-

uate venirepersons on the basis of a survey. Schulman

surveyed 840 respondents in the trial venue, recording

diverse attitudes possibly related to juror view of war

resisters. Respondents indicated what they thought of

various antiwar activities, which historical figures they

S

S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 705