Appendix II Sample Opinion Questions for Selected Criminal Voir Dire Topics
| Library | Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: Gain an Edge in Questioning and Selecting Your Jury (ABA) (2018 Ed.) |
This appendix addresses selected opinion topics that are of interest in jury selection in many criminal trials. Most of the questions are presented in a closed-ended format. The designations "P" and "D" indicate questions more likely to be asked by the prosecution and by the defense, respectively. Some questions have been adapted from the numerous supplemental juror questionnaires included in Appendix IV.
[D] Do you believe that if the prosecution goes to the trouble of bringing someone to trial, the person is probably guilty?
[D] Would the fact that the defendant has been indicted give you the impression that he is probably guilty?
[D] Would the fact that the defendant has been indicted give you the impression that he must have done something wrong?
[D] Would the fact that the criminal process has come as far as the defendant being in the courtroom today give you the impression that he must have done something wrong?
[D] Do you believe that if someone is charged with a crime, most likely they are guilty of some wrongdoing?
[D] If you had to vote right now, how would you vote? [Do you realize that the defendant is not guilty?]
[D] How did you feel when you heard that [name of defendant] was arrested for this crime?
[D] Did you have the feeling that the authorities had arrested the right person?
[D] Do you believe that sometimes innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit?
[P] As a representative of the people of this [country/state/locality], it is my duty to provide evidence that will convince you that the defendant committed the crimes charged. Do you understand that this is my duty, not the defendant's attorney, and that I take this duty seriously?
[D] In our system of justice, the prosecution has the burden of proving each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, it is the prosecution's duty to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. Would you have any trouble holding the prosecution to this burden?
[D] Do you feel that it is unfair for the prosecution to have that burden?
[D] Do you believe that defendants in criminal trials should have to prove that they are innocent?
[D] Do you feel that a defendant has to testify or present evidence before you could find him not guilty?
[D] How would you feel if the defense did not present any evidence at all?
[D] Would you tend to hold it against the defendant should the defense present no evidence at all? That is, would you tend to think the defendant was guilty?
[D] Would you expect the defense to prove the prosecution wrong?
[P] In a trial, there are two ways to prove a particular fact. The first way is by direct evidence, evidence that by itself proves a fact, e.g., an eyewitness's statements or someone's fingerprints on an object. The second way to prove a particular fact is by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence involves a collection of facts that lead you to conclude that another fact occurred, e.g., if you wake up one morning and snow is on the ground, where previously no snow had been, you would conclude that it snowed sometime during the night. Now, in this case, there will not be any direct evidence that the defendant murdered the victim; the case relies on circumstantial evidence. Would you tell me how you feel about considering only circumstantial evidence in deciding whether the defendant murdered (the victim)?
[P] Do you think that circumstantial evidence is somehow inferior or weak evidence?
[P] Do you believe that a case based only on circumstantial evidence would always leave a reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the defendant?
[P] Do you believe that a case based only on circumstantial evidence would always leave some doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the defendant?
[P] If we provided circumstantial evidence that led you to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, would you have any reservations in returning a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence?
[P] Would you have reservations in convicting a defendant of a serious crime such as murder without such evidence as DNA, fingerprints, or an eyewitness?
[P] Do you believe that a defendant should not be convicted based solely upon circumstantial evidence?
[D] The prosecution in this case will likely bring in circumstantial evidence and try to convince you that, taken together, this evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt [the defendant's] guilt. Now, let's consider circumstantial evidence for a minute, because sometimes it can appear stronger than it really is. Suppose you round the corner of a building and see someone injured on the ground. Next to the victim is a man holding a stick bending over him. Now, many people's first impression likely would be "Look, there is the attacker standing right next to his victim." However, can you imagine other explanations for the man to be found holding the stick? [For example, the man just arrived on the scene and picked up the stick.]
Overall, what is your impression of circumstantial evidence?
Or, in the snowfall scenario described by the prosecutor, would the presence of a snow-making machine nearby affect your confidence in the initial conclusion that it snowed overnight?
[D] Do you believe that circumstantial evidence must be viewed with great caution because it has the potential to give false impressions?
[P] As the prosecutor in this case, I have the duty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of [the crimes charged]. Now, many of you have heard the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" before—perhaps on television or in your reading about courtroom events. This is the standard of proof used in criminal trials. As the phrase implies, it is a reasonable standard. 1t is reasonable—based on our common sense—that we remove any serious, well-founded doubt that you may have about the defendant's guilt. And this we will do. However, 1 should remind you that the standard is not "beyond an unreasonable doubt." As the judge will instruct you later, we do not have to remove all possible—and trivial—doubt, but only any substantial or serious doubt. Would you have any reservations in returning a guilty verdict if we met this standard?
[P] If you served on the jury in this case, would you have any reservations in returning a verdict of guilty against the defendant if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder?
[P] If you served as a juror, you would be required to judge the defendant and return a verdict of guilty if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Would you have any reservations in returning a guilty verdict if the evidence proved the defendant to be guilty? How would you feel about returning a guilty verdict?
[P] Do you believe that, even if you felt that a defendant's guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you, for any reason, might be reluctant to return a verdict of guilty?
[P] In your mind, is there a difference between being absolutely 100 percent certain as compared to believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime?
[P] Given the implications for the defendant, do you think a defendant should not be convicted unless it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she committed the crime(s) charged?
[P] Do you believe that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too heavy a burden for the prosecution to have to meet in a criminal case?
What does the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean to you?
[D] Let us take a few minutes and talk about an important concept in American criminal law, that is, the prosecution's having to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an important test. In fact, this is the highest standard in the American judicial system. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a mild standard compared to what you will be deciding in this trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt means beyond all reasonable doubt. You must be certain that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged before you consider convicting the defendant. In coming to your decision, you must apply this standard to each element of the charge. And if the prosecution has not proved each element beyond all reasonable doubt, then it is your duty to return a not-guilty verdict. Do you believe that you would do that in deciding this case with your fellow jurors?
[D] If you served as a juror in this case, would you have any reservations in returning a not-guilty verdict if the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] committed the crimes charged?
[D] Do you believe that, even if you felt that a defendant's guilt is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you might for any reason be reluctant to return a verdict of not guilty?
Have you heard anything on the radio or seen anything in the newspaper, on television, or the Internet, or had discussions with friends or coworkers concerning this case [be explicit with the case description]?
Tell me a little about what you recall from what you heard, saw, or discussed.
Has anyone told you their opinion or view concerning whether the defendant is guilty of this crime?
What do your friends and close associates think about this (whether the defendant is guilty)?
What went through your mind when you read/heard/saw reports concerning [the event in question and subsequent events/reports]?
What did you think about the defendant when you read/heard/saw these reports?
Before coming to court today, what were your thoughts about the case or [the defendant]?
What impressions, if any, did you have about what happened?
Based upon what you have heard and discussed with your friends and...
To continue reading
Request your trial