prospective jurors’ ability to serve as impartial jurors.
Federal court adheres to this format of voir dire.
Extended voir dire typically allows for a greater number
of questions, more case-specific questions, and greater
involvement of the attorneys in the questioning. The
questioning format also varies according to the discre-
tion of the judge. Questions may be posed to the venire
members as a group, or members of the venire panel
may be questioned individually, out of earshot from the
remainder of the panel.
Attorneys from each side of the case may recom-
mend the elimination of venire members by issuing an
objection to a particular prospective juror’s presence on
the jury in the form of a challenge. There are two cate-
gories of challenges: challenges for cause and peremp-
tory challenges. The trial judge is responsible for either
granting or denying both types of challenges.
When issuing a challenge for cause, an attorney
must communicate to the Court the justification for the
challenge. The challenges for cause are intended to
eliminate prospective jurors who do not meet the legal
requirements for jury service. For example, federal law
mandates that jurors must be 18 years or older and U.S.
citizens to serve on a jury. In addition, impartiality is
another requirement for jury service; jurors must agree
to set aside preexisting opinions and promise to decide
the case based solely on the evidence presented during
trial. Thus, challenges for cause are designed both to
eliminate jurors who do not fit the statutory require-
ments of jury service and to excuse those who express
an inability or unwillingness to follow the law in a
given case. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are
granted an unlimited number of challenges for cause.
The second mechanism for removing members of
the venire panel is through the use of peremptory chal-
lenges. The peremptory challenge differs from a chal-
lenge for cause in that attorneys are not routinely
required to provide justification for the objection.
Peremptory challenges may be used to excuse prospec-
tive jurors who meet the legal requirements for jury ser-
vice. Indeed, an attorney may expend a peremptory
challenge to excuse a prospective juror whom the attor-
ney believes to be unfavorable to their case but who is
not eligible for an excusal for cause. With some excep-
tions, attorneys may base peremptory challenges on any
number of factors, including occupation, physical
appearance, and even nonverbal behavior in the court-
room. The number of peremptory challenges allotted to
attorneys is limited, and attorneys are usually granted a
greater number in high-profile cases. In addition, in
some cases, defense attorneys may receive moreperemptory challenges than prosecuting attorneys.
There are some restrictions to an attorney’s use of
peremptory challenges, however. Peremptory chal-
lenges may not be used to excuse a member of the
venire panel because he or she is a member of a cogniz-
able group. Case law maintains that jurors may not be
excluded based on their race (Batson v. Kentucky, 1968),
sexual orientation (People v. Garcia, 2000), gender
(J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 1994), religion (State v.
Fulton, 1991), or socioeconomic status (Thiel v.
Southern Pacific Co., 1946). Despite these rulings, lim-
iting the implementation of peremptory challenges, it is
widely acknowledged that the inappropriate use of
peremptory challenges, especially with regard to the
race or ethnicity of prospective jurors, still occurs.Voir Dire as a Safeguard
Voir dire is widely considered to be a legal safeguard,
helping ensure that verdict decisions are based on evi-
dentiary considerations and not the preexisting attitudes
of individual jurors. Voir dire is especially important in
cases in which there are concerns about the existence of
juror partiality, such as cases that have received a great
deal of pretrial media attention. In these types of cases,
jurors may hold attitudes that could interfere with their
ability to weigh the evidence in a fair manner. For exam-
ple, if jurors have been exposed to media coverage of a
case, it is possible that they may have already formed
opinions about the guilt of the defendant prior to the trial.
Similarly, research has demonstrated that there are cer-
tain types of cases about which jurors have strong atti-
tudes, such as death penalty and child sexual abuse cases
as well as cases in which a defendant enters an insanity
plea. Research has demonstrated that attitudes toward the
death penalty and attitudes toward the insanity defense
are related to verdicts in these types of cases. For exam-
ple, research indicates that jurors who are proponents of
the death penalty are more likely to render a guilty ver-
dict than jurors who are opposed to the death penalty.
This research indicates that for cases in which jurors hold
biases or strong preexisting attitudes, juror judgments are
not solely based on the strength of evidence.
For voir dire to be an effective procedure for elimi-
nating biased jurors from the panel, several conditions
must be met. First, attorneys must be able to construct
questions that accurately assess juror attitudes and tap
into juror bias. In addition, jurors’ attitudes must be
related to their verdict decisions. Finally, jurors must
respond honestly to questions posed to them during
voir dire.856 ———Voir DireV-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 856