Chapter 7 Juror Questionnaires
Library | Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection: Gain an Edge in Questioning and Selecting Your Jury (ABA) (2018 Ed.) |
Objectives
• To explore the basics of juror questionnaires and their construction.
• To understand the benefits of using juror questionnaires.
A major challenge faced during the jury selection process is to gather useful information about potential jurors so that lawyers may intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and uncover grounds for challenges for cause. Chapter 5 discussed a number of obstacles to effective voir dire, including factors that inhibited juror self-disclosure, candor and honesty—the prerequisites for effective voir dire. One tool for increasing juror self-disclosure and candor is the use of juror questionnaires. Written questionnaires, including electronically administered questionnaires, have been shown to increase disclosure in both survey research1 and jury selection.2 Importantly, several legal organizations have recommended the use of juror questionnaires in nonroutine cases.3
Juror questionnaires are designed to enhance and supplement information available through questioning on voir dire and potentially speed up the selection process. Since the early 1970s, supplemental juror questionnaires have been used sporadically but with increasing frequency in both federal and state courts.4 Many of the notable trials in the past few years have employed supplemental juror questionnaires. Examples of these trials include In re Exxon Valdez Litigation, International Paper v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., Mercado v. Warner-Lambert Co., Royal Palm Resort v. Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd., Schwaller v. Merck & Co., California v. Michael Jackson, California v. O. J. Simpson, Connecticut v. Michael Skakel, California v. Philip Spector, Kansas v. Scott Roeder, Colorado v. James Holmes, Rhode Island v. Michael Derderian, United States v. William Jefferson, United States v. Robert McDonnell, United States v. Timothy McVeigh, United State v. Zacarias Moussaoui, United States v. Terry Nichols, United States v. Oliver North, United States v. Theodore Stevens, and United States v. Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev.
Supplemental juror questionnaires are designed to elicit a variety of information from jurors. Depending on their scope, these questionnaires address the jurors' background characteristics, experiences, activities, and opinions and evaluations. For example, these questionnaires can explore many, if not all, of the following possible areas:
Background characteristics:
Occupation/employmentExperiences:
Education
Marital status
Income
VictimizationActivities:
Involvement in lawsuits
Use of firearms
Use of commercial products
Experience with patents or other intellectual property
Hobbies and spare-time activitiesGeneral opinions, values, and evaluations:
Organizational membership
Social media activity
Internet usage
General views concerning legal principles (e.g., presumption of guilt/innocence or standards of proof) and dutiesCase-specific information and opinions:
Psychological or personality characteristics (e.g., authoritarianism)
Trust in law enforcement
Views on causes of crime
Views on civil lawsuits
Views concerning punitive damages
Sentencing values
Views on the death penalty
Case-specific opinions, e.g., certain laws are too strict/lenient or compensation should/should not be provided for certain noneconomic damages
Exposure to/awareness of pretrial publicity
Favorable/unfavorable impressions of a party or parties
Beliefs in the guilt of a criminal defendant or liability of a civil defendant
Connections to witnesses, critical locations, parties, and their representatives
Supplemental juror questionnaires can vary considerably in the number of questions asked and the subsequent length of the questionnaire. For example, Table 7.1 shows the lengths of supplemental juror questionnaires used in various criminal and civil trials.
Number of Questions Asked | Pages | |
Type of Case | ||
Criminal: | ||
Texas v. Billy Joe Shaver | 15 | 1 |
Michigan v. Jack Kevorkian | 60 | 12 |
United States v. Oliver North | 36 | 13 |
Connecticut v. Michael Skakel | 69 | 16 |
California v. Philip Spector | 108 | 18 |
Colorado v. James Holmes | 77 | 18 |
Kansas v. Scott Roeder | 88 | 20 |
United States v. Marion Barry | 69 | 25 |
United States v. Timothy James McVeigh | 158 | 40 |
United States v. MAJ Nidal Hasan | 232 | 51 |
California v. O.J. Simpson | 303* | 87 |
Civil: | ||
i4i v. Microsoft Corporation | 11 | 1 |
Mercado v. Warner-Lambert Co. | 37 | 1 |
International Paper v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. | 53 | 11 |
John Doe v. Kohn et al. | 59 | 13 |
In re Exxon Valdez Litigation | 82 | 21 |
Mildred Valentine v. Dow Corning Corporation, et al. | 96 | 24 |
Royal Palm Resort v. Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd. | 91 | 31 |
Earl Washington, Jr. v. Kenneth H. Buraker, et al. | 101 | 31 |
* Due to misnumbering of questions, the total number of questions was 303 instead of the numbering of 294 that appears on the questionnaire.
The jurors' answers to the questions posed in the questionnaire serve as a starting point for the examination of jurors, either by the judge, the lawyers, or both. Follow-up questions may be allowed by the court to clarify answers or to pursue important areas of concern revealed by the jurors' answers. Subsequent voir dire questioning proceeds in the customary manner.
There are two basic methods for employing supplemental juror question-naires.5 These methods differ based on whether jurors complete the questionnaires off-site before trial (off-site method) or at trial (on-site method).
Off-site method. One method for obtaining information requested on supplemental juror questionnaires is to mail copies of the questionnaires to potential jurors before the trial.6 The court or jury administrator sends the questionnaire to potential jurors with instructions for how jurors are to complete and return the questionnaires and when the questionnaires must be returned. The questionnaires are accompanied by postage-paid, self-addressed mailers for their return. The following cover letter illustrates this approach.7
Questionnaires are usually mailed to jurors three to six weeks before the trial begins. Jurors return the completed questionnaires by mail to the court or, in some jurisdictions, to a printing company where the questionnaires are photocopied.
It is important to secure the completed questionnaires from as many potential jurors as possible in order to maximize the benefits obtained from this approach. Therefore, follow-up contact with potential jurors is sometimes necessary. However, follow-up procedures are inconsistently applied across jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, jurors who fail to return their questionnaires by a specific date are contacted by the court or jury administrator in an effort to secure the completed questionnaires. In other jurisdictions, no follow-up is attempted. Often, in this latter type of jurisdiction, the hope is that jurors who fail to return their questionnaires will bring the completed questionnaires with them when they come to court.
Copies of the completed questionnaires are made available to the parties (and the judge) at some designated time/date prior to trial. As we shall see later in this chapter, this time period may range from the day of trial to one or more weeks before trial.
On-site method. The second method of obtaining information on supplemental juror questionnaires takes place when jurors report for trial. Jurors complete the questionnaires upon their arrival for jury service, either in the jury lounge or some other appropriate setting. The completed questionnaires are then photocopied by the court for use by the parties and the judge.
The time available for attorneys to examine jurors' answers varies from a few hours to several days to several weeks. For example, in the Exxon Valdez civil case, jurors completed the questionnaires on a Monday and returned two days later for voir dire questioning. In the terrorism trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, all jurors completed the questionnaire on the same day, using two courtrooms in the morning and afternoon. These jurors later returned in small batches, with the first batch starting ten days later for the beginning of voir dire. In the Aurora Theater shootings trial of James Holmes, approximately 3,000 potential jurors reported in batches of 120-150 jurors, two times a day, over the course of a month to complete the questionnaires, with copies being made available to the parties during this process. However, in other cases, parties have had only a few hours at most to review the questionnaires before beginning voir dire questioning.
LUTHER D. THOMAS CLERK OF COURT
JURY & NATURALIZATION SECTION
404-331-6670
August 18, 1998
Dear Juror:
You have been selected as a prospective juror in the U.S. District Court at Atlanta, Georgia. To assist the Court in impaneling a jury on August 31, 1998, you are requested to answer the questions on the enclosed juror questionnaire.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide information in writing to help all parties select a fair and impartial jury. Your responses to these questions will save a great deal time for you, the judge, and the lawyers.
You must sign the questionnaire, and your answers are given to the Court under the oath that precedes your signature. Do not consult with anyone in preparing your answers. Your answers are given under oath, so answer as completely, candidly, and accurately as possible. The information that you give in response to this questionnaire will be used by the Court and the lawyers to...
To continue reading
Request your trial