Jury duty: Is getting picked for voir dire truly random?

[jtvang125]

Are you just picked off a list or are they targeting certain people by their names? You can certainly predict a few person's demographics just by their names.

 

[highland145]

Random, by DL here. You are giving the clerks at the court house too much "credit".

 

[Red Squirrel]

I'd imagine there are some factors. Like you want people who will be competent for that type of case. Ex: if it involves technology you want someone that knows about that technology. There's probably other factors like conflict of interest. They probably won't pick a relative or friend or coworker of the person the case is for.

I got put in the list of potential jurors a while back, so I could get a call at some point. So I imagine they have a large group of preselected people then they pick out of that group.

Would be kinda cool to be part of in a way, as long as it does not end up being a OJ simpson type case that drags for months lol. Probably get fired from your job for that.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I'd imagine there are some factors. Like you want people who will be competent for that type of case. Ex: if it involves technology you want someone that knows about that technology. There's probably other factors like conflict of interest. They probably won't pick a relative or friend or coworker of the person the case is for.

Actually, no. In the USA they're shooting for truly stupid and ill-informed and they don't want people familiar with the case. To judge whether a doctor was negligent is WAY beyond the knowledge of a jury, it should be handled by medical professionals. But in a wrongful death suit medical professionals are the one class that cannot be allowed on a jury..

Getting picked to go through voir dire is totally random in all jurisdictions AFAIK. You're on a list based on voting, property ownership, job history, taxes paid or whatever combination gets used by your courts. If you get randomly picked you show up to court with a buttload of other people and from that pool of jurors you're also randomly selected to go through voir dire. You might not get selected at all and spend your entire day in the jury room twiddling your thumbs.

If you get picked for voir dire in a trial it's no longer random. The judge will disqualify anyone TOO qualified (like a doctor on a medical case) and the lawyers are questioning people to try to find jurors likely to side with them while hoping they're not so obviously biased that they get kicked out by the judge or other lawyer.

I've been called probably about 5 times total. Of those times I only had to go into the courthouse twice, other times I was randomly excused because they didn't need jurors that day. Of the twice I showed up once I sat in the jury room for about 3 hours. Didn't get picked for voir dire and was excused before noon as they were not going to empanel any more people that day. The other time I did go through voir dire and got put on what looked to be a juicy trial. It was a manslaughter case with drugs involved and a possible love triangle jealosy motive. I was happy to get that trial and was looking forward to doing it. Then there was a procedural delay that was going to postpone the trial for six months. So the Friday before we were supposed to start all the jurors were excused as they had to pick a new jury when it eventually got going.

 

[gorobei]

OP needs to distinguish between jury summon vs voir dire.

getting a summon for jury duty is generally supposed to be random, based on DL and voter registration. the county just goes through the list and you show up for the jury pool. from the pool batches of people get sent to a courtroom where they get interviewed and questioned. if they fill the jury and the alternate spots, the rest of the pool gets to go home and not get called from the list for a few years.

voir dire is the pretrial screening where the attorneys or the judge get to question/interview the prospective juror to see if they want to excuse a juror, either for cause or without cause.

excused for cause is straightforward enough and pretty wide in scope: conflict of interest, prior experience leading to bias, career based info/knowledge, etc. but anything where the reasonable person acknowledges that the person probably shouldnt be on the jury.

without cause is where each lawyer has a finite number of peremptory challenges to excuse a juror candidate for no reason. this is how they try to shape influence the make up of the jury. some uses are irrational and silly, others are strategic.

 

[Drako]

The last jury I was on was for a murder trial, and everyone on the panel was individually questioned by the defense counsel and/or the prosecuting counsel.

 

[jtvang125]

Actually, no. In the USA they're shooting for truly stupid and ill-informed and they don't want people familiar with the case. To judge whether a doctor was negligent is WAY beyond the knowledge of a jury, it should be handled by medical professionals. But in a wrongful death suit medical professionals are the one class that cannot be allowed on a jury..

Getting picked to go through voir dire is totally random in all jurisdictions AFAIK. You're on a list based on voting, property ownership, job history, taxes paid or whatever combination gets used by your courts. If you get randomly picked you show up to court with a buttload of other people and from that pool of jurors you're also randomly selected to go through voir dire. You might not get selected at all and spend your entire day in the jury room twiddling your thumbs.

If you get picked for voir dire in a trial it's no longer random. The judge will disqualify anyone TOO qualified (like a doctor on a medical case) and the lawyers are questioning people to try to find jurors likely to side with them while hoping they're not so obviously biased that they get kicked out by the judge or other lawyer.

I've been called probably about 5 times total. Of those times I only had to go into the courthouse twice, other times I was randomly excused because they didn't need jurors that day. Of the twice I showed up once I sat in the jury room for about 3 hours. Didn't get picked for voir dire and was excused before noon as they were not going to empanel any more people that day. The other time I did go through voir dire and got put on what looked to be a juicy trial. It was a manslaughter case with drugs involved and a possible love triangle jealosy motive. I was happy to get that trial and was looking forward to doing it. Then there was a procedural delay that was going to postpone the trial for six months. So the Friday before we were supposed to start all the jurors were excused as they had to pick a new jury when it eventually got going.

Huh? So what is it? I'm talking about when your group goes through the whole process up to going inside the court room. They call up people to go sit in the jury box to be further questioned. So are the people who get picked truly random individuals or are there some basic information available besides your name that may influence you being picked over others?

 

[highland145]

IIRC, you have to fill out a questionnaire so the attorney's can see if they want to strike you or not.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Huh? So what is it? I'm talking about when your group goes through the whole process up to going inside the court room. They call up people to go sit in the jury box to be further questioned. So are the people who get picked truly random individuals or are there some basic information available besides your name that may influence you being picked over others?

It's entirely random to get called and it's entirely random to be sub-selected out of the jury pool. That's all blind, just random names off an eligibility list. Once you get beyond that into the actual voir dire it's no longer random, you're interviewed thoroughly to determine factors that would disqualify you as a juror. Your problem here is that you don't understand the definition of voir dire.

Three stages:
1) Being summoned to serve is NOT voir dire.
2) Being culled out of the jury room to appear in an actual court is NOT voir dire.
3) Voir Dire only refers to the last stage when you sit before the judge and lawyers and get questioned personally while under oath.

The first two stages are random, the last stage is not.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Interesting, I would have figured they would want someone who will know enough about the case to be able to make a better judgment call. Like for a medical malpractice you'd think they'd want doctors and nurses from other hospitals (to avoid conflict of interest) on the jury as they will be able to understand better the situation.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Interesting, I would have figured they would want someone who will know enough about the case to be able to make a better judgment call. Like for a medical malpractice you'd think they'd want doctors and nurses from other hospitals (to avoid conflict of interest) on the jury as they will be able to understand better the situation.

Common sense says that many things, especially cases like medical malpractice or engineering failures, might have details that are far too complicated for the layperson to understand. Who better to decide if a doctor failed than another doctor or an engineer to determine if a building that collapsed was due to faulty construction, substandard materials or bad architecture and engineering? But that opens the door to collusion and favoritism. Like cops don't arrest other cops, doctors might not want to point the finger at other doctors. So the American jury system is based on ignorance. If you care about the outcome or know something about the case you're out. The only way to get on a jury is to be stupid and apathetic.

USA!! USA!! USA!!

 

[Red Squirrel]

Common sense says that many things, especially cases like medical malpractice or engineering failures, might have details that are far too complicated for the layperson to understand. Who better to decide if a doctor failed than another doctor or if a building that collapsed was due to faulty construction, substandard materials or bad architecture and engineering? But that opens the door to collusion and favoritism. Like cops don't arrest other cops, doctors might not want to point the finger at other doctors. So the American jury system is based on ignorance. If you care about the outcome or know something about the case you're out. The only way to get on a jury is to be stupid and apathetic.

USA!! USA!! USA!!

Damn that's quite retarded, no wonder the justice system sucks so much and that people get badly sentenced all the time. It always makes me sad to hear stories where someone has been rotting in jail for 20 years and they are finally released when they realized they were wrongly sentenced and all they get is a sorry and a couple thousand bucks. Have fun starting your life at 40 when you were sentenced at 20 and have absolutely zero money or schooling and can't get a job because you have 20 years of jail on your record. Would be interesting to see if lot of those cases end in mass depression and suicide.

 

[shortylickens]

Does Canada have juries?

I thought they just did a cage match with maple syrup.

 

[Six]

Don't believe the person talking out of his ass, drawing a plethora of conclusions based on assumptions.

Having been on and deliberated on a murder trial, I can tell you that the jurors became better than the average person through the Voir Dire process. All jurors in my trial held professional positions, except for one college student. The unemployed, homemaker, seemingly "special," etc were dismissed by both sides. And while the jurors don't want to be there, they all strongly believed it's their duty to do what's right - whatever that may be. Even if you have expert knowledge, you cannot use your knowledge. If you do, it'll be apparent to other jurors during deliberation. You have to deliberate on only evidence presented at trail. If you don't understand something or see something wrong, you're suppose to immediately pass a note to the judge.

The system is not perfect but it works well. There's just some stuff which no one has found a fix. ie. jurors naturally like and trust people who look and act like them.

 

[madoka]

I'd imagine there are some factors. Like you want people who will be competent for that type of case. Ex: if it involves technology you want someone that knows about that technology.

I got selected for a gun case. They asked us how many guns we had as part of jury selection. I only started my collection at the time, so I told them 75 guns. I also told them I was a lawyer and read up on gun law due to my collecting. I got kicked off.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Why would it be based on DL? Do local and county courts have full access to the state's DL database? I would think they would do it based on residents within their jurisdiction. In Georgia that would be car tag, for instance.

 

[Jeeebus]

As someone stated above, voir dire refers solely to the last stage of the selection process - the lawyers/judge asking you questions to see whether they want you on the jury - or, if done correctly, whether they don't want you on the jury.

There may be 30 prospective jurors in the room and the judge gives us some amount of time to ask questions. I'm mainly asking questions to determine whether you have some inherent bias that should serve to disqualify you. Secondarily I'm taking a guess as to who I think might be more favorable to me.

When voir dire is done the selection process begins. We might have 30 prospects, but we're going to have 8 jurors. First thing is challenges for cause - those are unlimited. Someone is related to a lawyer, someone who can't be fair, etc. Judge makes the determination.

Then we go down the list from 1 - 30 with it rotating between plaintiff and defendant. We each get maybe 3 challenges for shits and giggles (only caveat being you can't challenge for race, gender, etc.). Juror 1 - any challenge? Yes - he's out. No? He's in. Once we reach 8, we're done. So if you're prospective juror 35, chances are almost 99% you're not getting selected.

For all the trials I've done, I can confidently say that most lawyers suck at voir dire. Most ask idiotic questions and give it very little thought. I enjoy it because it's my first chance to humanize myself to the jury and get to know them.

 

[dasherHampton]

Jury duty selection isn't random.

Do I have proof? No. But I hang around with a couple of guys who are higher ups at what is by far the largest company in the town where I live and a few years ago the subject came up. I was whining about the fact that I had been called twice in 6-7 years and they just laughed.

Nobody in their "circle" has ever been called since they got their jobs and moved to town. The implication is obviously that their company arranges for higher level employees not to be called.

 

[Jeeebus]

Jury duty selection isn't random.

Do I have proof? No. But I hang around with a couple of guys who are higher ups at what is by far the largest company in the town where I live and a few years ago the subject came up. I was whining about the fact that I had been called twice in 6-7 years and they just laughed.

Nobody in their "circle" has ever been called since they got their jobs and moved to town. The implication is obviously that their company arranges for higher level employees not to be called.

You don't have proof because your theory is idiotic. I've never won the lottery, but that doesn't mean Powerball is not random.

To the extent you want proof, I'm fairly sure these folks are 'higher up' than the guys at your company:

https://m.ranker.com/list/celebrities-who-have-served-on-juries/jessica-lawshe

 

[highland145]

Why would it be based on DL? Do local and county courts have full access to the state's DL database? I would think they would do it based on residents within their jurisdiction. In Georgia that would be car tag, for instance.

Don't know. If I remember, I'll make a call Monday.

 

[MtnMan]

Ah yes to be judged by 12 people that couldn't get out of jury duty.

 

[sswingle]

Don't know. If I remember, I'll make a call Monday.

I thought it was voter registration

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I thought it was voter registration

It's different things in different places. They can use voter registration, tax records, drivers licenses, property ownership, car registration or any combination of all that stuff.

 

[madoka]

Ah yes to be judged by 12 people that couldn't get out of jury duty.

Last I remember, it was DAMN tough to get out of jury duty.

I saw a woman who's father, brother, husband, and son were cops. So she said that she would side with cops every time. They kept her.

I saw a man who's father was killed by a robber. So he said that he'd be extremely biased towards the criminal being guilty. They kept him.

I was freaking out because it was a two week trial. My income loss would have hurt a lot.

 

[MtnMan]

Last I remember, it was DAMN tough to get out of jury duty.

I saw a woman who's father, brother, husband, and son were cops. So she said that she would side with cops every time. They kept her.

I saw a man who's father was killed by a robber. So he said that he'd be extremely biased towards the criminal being guilty. They kept him.

I was freaking out because it was a two week trial. My income loss would have hurt a lot.

Mention "jury nullification" and you won't be selected.