It is important to question the jury about the factual and legal issues in the case. In order to ask them about the legal issues in the case you will have to educate them as to the law. It is completely proper to educate the jury about legal principal that may arise, as it would not be possible to question a juror if they could follow the law if they did not understand the law. Questioning the jury on the law should not be limited to the charges or cause of action, but should also include legal principles about weighing the evidence.
EXAMPLES OF LEGAL ISSUE QUESTIONS IN VOIR DIRE
- Explain what the charges require the prosecutor/plaintiff to prove, and if they can return a verdict based on the law?
- Would you give more credibility to law enforcement, loss prevention officer, etc than any other witness?
- Explaining the presumption of innocence, and asking if they could properly apply it?
- If the defendant did not testify in a criminal case would you hold that against him?
It is also important to question the jury about factual issues to determine if they would be biased based on their previous life experience, understanding of normal human behavior, or the context of the case that may relate to a specific factual issue. You will have to be careful when questioning the jury about factual issues to avoid trying the case in jury selection. These questions will often be asked hypothetically or broadly, as to not go into the facts of the case. You will also likely want to ask the jurors about their background to see if they have any predisposed biases.
EXAMPLES OF FACTUAL ISSUE QUESTIONS IN VOIR DIRE
- Have you had any good or bad experiences with law enforcement/insurance companies?
- Would you assume just because the defendant refused the breathalyzer he's guilty?
- Do you think a person would only confess to a crime if he were guilty?
- Has anyone been charged with the same crime as the defendant?
CONNECTING WITH THE JURY
It is important to put the issues into context in a way that connects with the jurors. For example in a criminal case a broad question like "the constitution gives the defendant the presumption of innocence. Can you presume the defendant is innocent?" is generally met with a generic "yes" that does not tell us much about whether the juror can presume the defendant is innocence. If we ask the question in a way that connects jury with people outside of the lega, their perspective of the issue changes. The jury will resonate more with the presumption of innocence if the question is asked the following way:
"Does anyone think I am guilty of these allegations? We can all agree the answer to that question is no, because you presume I'm innocent right? Can you give my client the same presumption of innocence you would give me?"
This will often give the jury a better perspective of what the presumption of innocence means.
